Q. Would it require much to remove it, or a little? A. Well, that I could not say; I could not answer that. Q. But your impression would remain until the evidence did remove it? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Fullerton.-Well, I will leave it there. Mr. Evarts.--You are in the storage business. Have you any particular acquaintance or connection with the firm of Woodruff & Robinson, or Mr. Moulton, or any of those people? A. No, sir. Q. They are in the same business? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you paid much attention to this matter to form any responsible judgment about it? A. No, sir. Q. Has there, at any time, been in your mind anything more than the casual impression that the last reading gave you? A. Nothing more. Q. And you now say to the court that you have no impression resting upon your mind that would interfere with your accepting the evidence as it arose, and deciding according to it? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Evarts. We think he is a good juryman, sir. JUDGE NEILSON.-I think he has an impression that does not leave him indifferent between the parties, and the challenge to favor is sustained. [To the juror.] Stand aside, sir. Mr. Shearman.-We except, if your Honor please. CHESTER CARPENTER called and sworn on a challenge for principal cause. Mr. Beach.-Has your attention been directed to this controversy between Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you read considerable concerning it? A. I have. Q. Have you been so far interested in it as to keep up with the current of publications on the subject? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you imbibed any impressions in regard to the truth of the charge against Mr. Beecher? A. I have. Q. Have those been deliberate, upon consideration of the matter brought to your attention? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you have that impression now? A. No, sir. Q. You have not? A. No, sir. Q. Well, how did you get rid of it? A. I got rid of it by investigation. Q. By investigation? A. By investigation and what I read. Q. That is, you have an impression? A. I had an impression, and I have by argument discussed the subject and have been decided upon it; I have changed that view. Q. When was it that you were decided? A. Well, I was decided after Mr. Beecher's statement came out. Q. Decided after Mr. Beecher's statement came out? A. After both of them came out. Q. After the whole subject came out? A. After the whole subject came out. Q. I understood you to say that you had a decided opinion after the whole subject came out-did you say so? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then you have learned nothing new if the whole subject was exhausted? A. I have changed my view. Q. I did not ask you about that—you have learned nothing new after the whole subject was exhausted? A. No, sir. Q. Then the state of your information, after the whole subject was exhausted, remains precisely the same? A. No, sir. Q. Not the state of your information? A. Oh! my information on that subject-yes, sir. Q. And that was how recently that you adopted that opinion upon the consideration of the whole subject? A. I have changed my view Q. I am not asking you about "change; " please leave out that word for a little while; I ask you about when it was that you last had this decided opinion upon a consideration of the whole subject? A. I could not state the time. Q. Tell me as near as you can? A. Well, it is within two months-about two months, I should think. Q. Now, then, sir, will you please tell me by what means you have come to change that opinion? A. Well, sir, I came to change it the last sermon I read of Mr. Beecher's upon theatres, upon the Sabbath day and theatres; I changed my whole views. Q. You changed your whole views? A. I did. Q. You adopted other views I suppose? A. I have not gone over, 1 am neutral; I have no opinion. Q. Wait, wait; I know that; we do not suppose that, of course; but when you changed the views you did entertain—those decided views-did not you adopt other views? A. Well, yes, sir, I may say I did. Q. Then you simply changed your opinion? A. I changed my opinion thus far, that I left the impressions that I had had, that I had formerly formed; I left them; they were removed, I think. Q. Did I understand that you had heard that sermon? A. No, sir; I read it. Q. Have you heard Mr. Beecher preach? A. Yes, sir. Q. How recently? A. Not within two or three years. Q. Three or four years? A. Three years, I guess. Q. Are you attached to any congregation, Mr. Carpenter? A. Yes, sir, I am; the Presbyterian Church in Classon-ave., corner of Monroe-st., Dr. Duryea. Q. You are a communicant? A. Yes, sir. Q. If I understand you, having a decided opinion one way upon this subject, the reading of a sermon purporting to be delivered by Mr. Beecher changed the views which you then entertained? A. I had an impression; I had not decided so; I said this; I discussed that in my family, and other places; the remark I made was this: "If Mr. Beecher is guilty, I hope it will all come out and be proved; but the law says he is innocent until he is proved guilty;" my family are divided on the subject, and have been, my sons and daughters, and I have taken that ground and told them that, but the impressions I have had have been removed. Q. It is the present state of your mind, whether it is indifferent or not as between these parties, that we wish to ascertain. Do you think your mind is free and unbiased to receive the evidence which might be presented upon both sides of this question, and canvass it fairly and impartially? A. I do, wholly on the evidence. Q. That you could decide this case without any prejudice or bias, wholly upon the evidence, under the instructions of the court as to the law? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you have no self-doubt or self-scruple upon that subject? A. No, sir. Mr. Beach. We withdraw our challenge, sir. Mr. Shearman.-We accept the juror. We suppose, from what accidentally came out, he has a slight prepossession against us. Mr. Beach.-Don't make a speech to the jurymen. Mr. Shearman.-Well, you drew it out. Mr. Beach.-Well, you needn't comment upon it. JUDGE NEILSON.-It is possible to discover which way the bias is, I think. JOHN MCMURN called and affirmed on a challenge for principal cause. Mr. Beach.-What is your occupation? A. Grocer. Q. Have you formed any opinion upon this case? A. No, sir. Q. You haven't had occasion to read much about it? A. Yes, sir; I read some of it. Q. Well, how extensively have you read-have you read all the statements of the parties about it? No, sir. Q. Read anything more than occasionally? A. No; nothing more. Q. Well, have you talked much about it? A. No, sir. Q. What sort of a grocery do you conduct? A. A retail grocery. Q. Family stores? A. Yes, sir. Q. And whereabouts? A. No. 99 Rochester-avenue. Q. And is your dwelling in the same building? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have a family, I take it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Children? A. Yes, sir. Q. Daughters? A. No, sir. Q. Well, haven't you had occasion, at any time, to converse about this case? A. Well, not of any consequence. Q. Has it been the subject of any conversation in your family? A. No, sir. Q. Have you had any discussion or contention with any person in regard to it? A. I never had, sir. Q. No debate? A. No, sir. Q. And have you no opinion or impression in regard to its merits? A. No, sir; I have no opinion, and all the impression I had was like any other exciting news we read out of the newspapers. Q. And do you think you could, as a sworn juryman, act impartially between the parties upon the evidence submitted to you? A. I think I could, Mr. Beach.-We withdraw our challenge. Mr. Evarts.--Where do you carry on your business? A. No. 99 Rochester avenue. Q. Whereabouts is that--what part of Brooklyn? A. Well, at Bedford side. Q. In Bedford? A. Yes. Q. How long have you carried on your business there? A. I have been there a little over six years. Q. And where before that in that business? A. On the corner of Franklin-ave. and Butler-st. Q. Same line of business? A. Yes, sir. Q. What style of grocery is it? A. Retail. Q. Yes, but what you call a family grocery store? A. Yes, sir. Q. Provision store also? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, is it a retail liquor- A. No, sir. Q. Nothing of that kind? A. No, sir. Q. Now, haven't you read more or less of this? A. I have, sir. Q. And don't the people that come to your store talk to you about it? A. They do not. Q. Don't take any interest in it up in that region? A. I don't know what they do. Q. But you don't? A. I do not. Q. Well, in your own family is there any interest in it? A. No, sir. terian, Q. What church? A. Well, I don't attend any one just particularly now. Q. Well, don't your family have sittings in some church? A. They do. Q, What is that? A. To Mr. Faulkner. Q. How about your not having any opinion-have you never had any opinion? A. I never had any opinion of this thing or any other exciting object like this--don't have anything to do with it. Q. Never had an opinion in your life? A. Oh! I might-different things -but I don't have opinions on newspaper reports. Q. How long have you lived in New York state? A. Something nearly 30 years. Q. And what countryman are you? A. I am an Irishman. Q. North of Ireland? A. Well, you might call it the North--middle states. Mr. Evarts.-Well, I will call it the North. We have no objection to him. JUDGE NEILSON.-Let this juror take his seat, gentlemen. You now have twelve jurymen. Are you content? Mr. Beach. We are, sir. Mr. Shearman.-We are content, your Honor. The list of the jury thus impanneled and entered on the minutes, is as follows: If your Mr. Beach.-After a consultation between counsel on both sides.] Honor please, the subject has been somewhat under discussion as to what disposition should be made of the jury during the pendency of this trial, and counsel upon both sides seem to consider that it would be a very great hardship upon these gentlemen to ask the court to confine them together during the long period which may be occupied in the progress of the trial. But for myself, sir, and my associates, I ask your Honor to impress upon the jury the importance of refraining from any communications with any person upon the subject-matter of the trial, and from listening to any conversation or discussions which may be instituted in their presence. I understand it, sir, to be a very common artifice of those who wish to influence jurymen to start those discussions in their presence, and it seems to me that the jury should be instructed, upon the part of your Honor, to avoid being present at any such debates, and to make an effort to escape the exercise of any possible influence which the friends of either party may endeavor to exert. And, with great respect, I solicit such injunction from your Honor as will be likely to impress the jury and to lead them to make a report to your Honor of any effort that shall be made, directly or indirectly, towards influencing either one of them. So far as we are concerned, if your Honor shall think proper to give such instructions to the jury, we shall be willing to trust to their integrity and honor to obey those instructions. JUDGE NEILSON.-My own impression would be very strong in favor of holding the jury in some convenient place, and not allowing them to separate; and the only qualification of that judgment on my part is the term for which the trial may continue. Having somewhat to do, too, with the season of the year, it might be oppressive to the jury, as has been suggested. I would like to understand that I have the consent of the counsel on both sides to allow this jury to separate upon receiving now and being reminded hereafter of the injunction which has been suggested. Mr. Evarts.-We consent upon our part. We understand that to be the ordinary course in civil cases. JUDGE NEILSON.-Then, gentlemen, you have heard the suggestions that have been made; you understand that you are impanneled as a jury in this case with the concurrent approbation of the counsel upon both sides. They look to you as their arbiters in this matter, and the trust reposed in you is a |