The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-07-02

by reports, pa. 1877 ." as 10 the otaer point !;
an opinion formed and declared upon general
principle of law does not diiqualify juror &c Fl;
on cafe, where that principle applies. Jurors
are Judges of the law as we'll as of the fact rs
relative TO the iiiues put to them, and are ftp.
pofed TO have opinions of what the law is, tho
4 Willingness to change them, if reafon appears
lathe courie of the trial. They may all be cital-
lenged on one fide or the other, if having an o.
pinon Of the law in the cafe is ground of chal-
lcnge. 1t is eonugh in point of indiiferency,
that jurors have no interef oftheir own affected,
and no perfonai bias or prepoHeilion, in favor
or againft either party, and not requihte that
they fhould be ignorant of the cafe, OF unopin-
donated as to the rules and principles on which
it is to be decided. Ii has been adiudged (23
Can. X. b. not to be a fufhcient caufc of Chal-
lenge, that Juror had declared his opinion con-
corning the title Of the land in queftion 70 alto
that the jury have found others guilty on the
fame indictment or that juror has declared
his opinion that the party is guilty, aud will be
bang'd, IL it appears he made fuch declaration
from his knowledge of the caufe, and not out of
ill will te tue party. Hawk. P. c. 49,"
ttut the authorities i have adduced fully
fhew, that in point of law there was no valid oh
jettion to Mr. Buffet as juror, aud that the IL
legality charged againf judge Chaie on this ac
count falls to the ground.
ofthebon. managers-3 Btcon 1861 Mr.. Key
here read the cafe.
We find that all the cau!es of challenge here
recited go to evince Partiaity, or in the Ian.
ruage Of the ancient books, Is favor or malace."
II the having formed and delivered an opinion
Z Oh the law were a good caufe for challenge, no
capital cafe could come before an unpreiudiced
jury. The only queition in fuch cafes is whe-
Their the facts proved come up to the charge.
For fuch is the intereft men take in the commit
fion of great crimes that every man forms an O.
pinion on them.
Something has been faid of the trial of Log
wood for forging the currency of the bank of
the United States. There is probably no man
or information that has not heard fomething of
the fubject, or made up his opinion on the ille-
gaiity OF counterfetiug. But does il follow that
the having formed fuch an opinion could DIFF
quality man from terving juror in the cafe !?
1t this were 10, 1t would follow that he who had
formed the mott correct opinion on the laws of
his country would be the mott incompetent,
while he who was the mott ignorant of them,
would be the mott competent juror. Itappears
that if Mr.. Bahet had even anfwered in the af-
hrma.ive TO the queftion put to him, fuppo6ng
the indictment to have been previoufly publilh-
ed, it would not have defroyed his competency
as juror, becaufe he, notwithstanding, food
and the law aliGng on them.
Believing that no fubtility or ingenuity can
flake the principle j have laid down, or eitah-
li!h contrary principle, feel full confidence
in having ihewn the legality of the opinion laid
down by the court and do believe that
more corrett opinion was never delivered.
Suppofe we are miftaken in the fact, which
we fay is proved, that Mr.. Balet did not defire
to be executed admit that he did pray to be ex-
cufed, fill 10 far as he has himfeifon oath ex-
planned tine iituation of his MUD, there was no
cauie for challenge.
Admit ALTO that we are miltaken in the law
we have laid down, does it follow AS nrcei1a-
ry coniequence that the directing Bafiet to be
fworn on the jury was done with an intent to
opprefs the traverfer? We call for the facts
that impeach the motives of Judge Chafe. In
the opening Of this cafe we were told the refpon-
dent was highly gifted with rich attainments of
mind. 1t was correctly Gid and it might
have been adaed that his integrity was equal 10
his talents. But the obfervation was made
TO ra'ie his head at tie expence Of his heart.
will examine this argument
The truth is that no Judge is liable for an err
ror oil judgement. | apprehend this is con-
celed by the article itfelf, which fates crimi-
nal intent. Now for the evidence. What cri-
'"i'"' 'itShticn to TIC HOH' UldniSerS UFdW from
II /! 1t is fad that the Respondent lie highly gift
ed with intellectual powers, and mutt have
known IN this inhance the law.-Timro Danaos
Ell dana +tSrentrJ. i dilke the compliment. the
beft gifted mortals frail, and Jingle errone-
Gus deciion may be made by any man.
Let us, on this point, refer to decilions in
modern times. They will thew that an error
infringement has never of itfelf been conider
ed an evidence of corruption in Judge.
Mr.. Key here cited cafe from Dunford and
Eat, folio 65S-Sing Us. Johnfon containing
The opinion os iuItice Butler, who declares
that you can never infer corruption
from the Judgment itfelf but from the opinion
given"
E,re then is the decided opinion of mott
able Judge that although the atf and Judgment
Oh court be illegal, there is no ground TO in
fef corruption. So in this cafe, admit, for ar
eument's fake, that we are miRaken in point of
fatt, and that the law we have laid down is in
correct till, however grofs the error Of the
judge, IT cannot in itielf contain any foundation,
for prriumng fraud. From what fact is fraud
inferred? From the general MATS ofthe tranr.
actions attending the trial of Calender? The
-,.deDce cannot be taken accnmulativey. Each
article NUT be taken by itfelf, aud one can de-
rive no force from the ref. Were this not The
caie,a baitY word, uttered in an uns1arcled
moment, might be confirmed into A crime.
and a uuiunsr as I'm III ,n,.n...