THE ARBUCKLE TRIAL

Hokitika Guardian, 9 January 1922, Page 4

THE ARBUCKLE TRIAL

EXTRAORDINARY SCENES. j FOREMAN OF JURY. AND JURY j , WOMAN. j I ACCUSED “DELIGHTED.” j SAN FRANCISCO, Dee. 8. J The coiiclusiin of the trial of Itosc'oe I (“Fatty”) Arbu’ekle, the well-known I i movie comedian, oil a charge of causI I ing the death of Virginia Itappe, a ' j popular cin’ema star, b;ls illustrated | the drawback of iiiixed juries, and has ; ? i focused national Attention throughout ! j the United States to the undesirability J of women serving on jtiries to undergo j such extraordinary physical tortures. 'I Mrs Helen M. Hubbard, the woman | who “hung” the Arbii'ckle jury, was steadfast in contending that she acted ,J i only according to her conscience and the evidence presented, saying: “I b--9 litre Arimekle to be guilty, and the a majority of the evidence proved it. h No power on heaven or earth could 1 have caused me to change my lixc.s * opinion. Tiiey are saying terrible things about both me and m.v husband on account of my stand in the case, 9 hilt before God 1 did my ditty as I 1 saw it. Not only are they intimating 1_ that there Was a subtle connection between my husband and ’the District

Attorney’s Office, but .Mi - Hubbard was approached while the jury was reaching its verdict and warned that lie could be ruined if he did not get a note to lire in the jury room instructing line to vote for acquittal. It was the matter of the firiger-pririts purely in the final analysis that decided me. There is no place for a wbhian oil a jury. Any woiUan is a fool to get oil one it she can possibly get out of serving. I’d

father die than go through it again. 1 have suffered the annoyance, the Wear and tear, the publicity, and the upsetting bf lily household, and for what?—to be labelled a ‘cHok a fid a plant’ by the defence lawyers. A LAWYER’S WIFE. “lii the first place, it was the sur-

prise of my life, that I, a lawyer’s wife, would lie allowed to remain oil the pa Pel. I made engagements up to tlie very last moment in the firm conviction that I would be thrown off. Once bb tile jury, however, 1 would vote hty husband guilty, if I really believed him to be that in my heart.” Airs fltibbard befitted the testimony of Kate Brennan, the hotel maid, and ah important defence witness. Mrs Hiibbard says she wants her next housemaid capable as Kate Brennan, who, testified to scrubbing eighteen doors, five windows, two mantels, two bathrooms, and sweeping arid dusting t\Vb rooiiis in otic limlr and a half. “It can’t lie done,” said Mrs Hubhard. ‘l’ve done my share of .housework, and I know. The.woman’s status lii the jury roorii is a humiliating one, to say the least,” she continued. “No provision is made for the bandling of a mixed jury. The general attitude and language of the men are offensive to a wohiati, and the foreman took the stand that 1 was voting Arbtickle guilty prirely fot pighcadedlicss and not from a sense bi justice.” Mrs Hubbard said after the first few hotlrs’ deliberation it was apparent tile jury was trying the case of District Attorney Brady, and not Roscoe Arbnekle. “Many of the jurors felt as 1 did as to Arbuckle’s ggiilt,” she said, “but they seemed unwilling to vote for conviction because the prosecution’s case was Hot stroiig enough.” Mrs Hubbard is no ordinary woman either as to physique or mentally. She is described as “a woman of heroic proportions and dominant personality, a Titian-haired Amazon combining the exact knowledge of a housewife and a firm believer in equal rights.” Both as to body and mind she appears to have been fitted tor toe strain ef jury duty if ever a woman was so equipped.

TRYING ORDEAL. But 44 hours of deliberation in the jury room, folldiVing 16 days oKanxious study ifi Hie court, was. more than her capacity for endurance. The other woman jiiror who has spoken for publioation docs not express her opinion as to jury service in general, but it is admitted that she was several times on the point of collapse, and she acknowledges changing her vote not because her fellow jurors brought fresh argumchts, but because first having voic'd “guilty” she was immediately distressed b,V a question of conscience. Her statement is testimony to the severe strain imposed upon women jurors in shell eases. The principle of women serving on juries is not contested by lire American Press, but tlvey do hot forget to point out tire fact that between principle 'strict practice there may bo the yawning ebasin separating the ideal and the undesirable. August Fritzd was the fbivman of the jury whose ’conduct in tlie jiiryrooni Mrs Hubbard complained strongly of; she said ho was particularly offensive in his treatnieh: of her. Mr Hubbard, the lawyer, naturally later took up the cudgels in defence of bis wife, and ,lie stated that Fritze threatened Mrs Hubbard in the following language: “I’ll knock your block oil'!’’

For this language the Public Prose cutor terms Fritzc a “blackguard.” MANY LIVELY INCIDENTS.

There were many lively incidents during the trial, each of the opposing lawyers indulging in severely critical language, firing broadsides into the jury as to their duties. Even the judge was almost dictated to, but lie promptly called a halt. One of the witnesses, a Canadian war nurse, was almost insulted publicly for her war record, which was called into question by one person. Later this hardy Canadian nurse was shadowed all over San Francisco, and at last some sleuth managed to engage her in conversation and persuade her to accept some candy, which after she had partaken of it caused her severe illness, owing to the sweets being poisoned. Gavin MacNah, the son of a wealthy Glasgow business man who carried on a big undertaking in Sail Fraiioisoo for many years, defended Arbuckle, and is announced to have collected a legal fee of £3OOO for the few days iri which he handled the case after the Los \nceles lawyer withdrew. " ARBtTCivLE mTGtttED. In tbe meantime Arbuckle lias departed for bis home in I,os Angeles, greatly delighted at tbe result of the disagreement of the San Francisco jury. He says he is vindicated and considers >” a vHtory from his stand-

| point. Tills is a statement tliat lie | gatVe to the Press:—“Barr'in'g one wo-j man oft the jury if thirteen represen- j tative American men and women, who j refused to allow: her fellow jurors to, discuss the evidence or reason with her, ancl who wo'Wld Wot 'giv’6 any explanation for her attitude, my trial would have resulted iu an immediate acquittal. While this, through the technicalities of the law, is not a legal acquittal, morally it is such. After the organised propaganda, designed, to make the securing of an impartial jury an impossibility, and to prevent my obtaining a fait trial, I fee! grateful for this message from the jury of the American people. This comes, too, after hearing only part of the facts, as the efforts of the District Attorney succeeded, on technical objections, iw excluding from the jury the several statements from Miss Itappe to people of high character, completely exonerating me.” ■' Arbuckle’s new trial on the murder charge will open in San Francisco on January 9th, and there are othci charges, including infraction of the prohibition laws, against him.