The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-08-09
ElcHMoNB FRIDAY MORNING, AUGUST 4 1905


thofe trials never heard of Jurors, when called
to be fworn, examiped ON oath whether they had
formed or formed or delivered, or whether
they hal formed and delivered an opinion on
the iuiJett about to be tried. And here ALTO
let me obierve that there is no iuft grounds for
tae charge that Judge Chat; from partially adj
mipiitered the oath differently in Calender S
Gale from the manner in which he administered
II to the jurors in the cafe of Fries for Mr. Rawle,
referring to his notes taken at the time, hath
told us that in the cafe of Fries, one or two of
the fift jurors were only alsed whether be had
formed an opinion after which the cuefton
was put, whether he had formed or delivered an
opinion, but ultimately the qustion aikcd was,
whether they had formed and delivered an o.
piniou- which queition was put ia the greater
part of the jurors 10 that the interrogatory nj
fimatelr fixed upon in the cafe Of Fries is the
fame which, was put to all the jurors, who were
interroeated in the cafe Of Calender.
have, Mr.. PRECEDENT, been in the practice of
the law for thirty ycars.-Before the revolution
attended, two or three wears, the two counties
on the Eattern Shore of Vreiuia--Suffrx co,n-
ty in De!awarc-and Someritt and Worcefer
In Maryland; tincc the revolution have COM
fantiy attended the general courts on the Wei
tern and Eafern Shores of MARYLAND, and the
civil and criminal! courts Of Baitr,ore county
and for about fix years feveral other counties in
, Maryland. In the whole courfe ofmy practice,
. have never known Jingle cafe either civil or
criminal, in which the jurors have b,ea, when
called 10 tic book, demanded to antwer upon
oath either of the afortfaid quc!sions, which the
defendants counf- requefed to be put 10 them.
II either party choofe 70 challenge Juror for
favor, on account of declarations made by the
Juror, the only ground for i; is that he has ucrd
exprefiions lhewing his determination to decide
for one party or the other without regard To
truth and iuitice. In which cafe the party
makes bis objection to the particular ilIsor, fpe-
cifying the expreiiions uttered by the juror in
d;cative of fuch improper determination, and
produces witneiies 10 e(fabhlh his objection;
for the juror cannot be examined on oath to fub-
ttartiatc the charge-and, unleis by mutual con-
TENT, the objection made NUT be decided, not
by the court, but by trieyJ And the only mat
ter to be decided is whether The juror has made
any declaration of a deGgn to give verdict one
way or the other, whether right or wrong FOR
If the juror made the declarations from his know
ledge of the facts in the cafe, this would be no
caufe of challenge, nor any objection to his be-
ing iworn on the jury. And as the Juror him
felf agant whom fIch objection is made can
not be examined OATH il follows OF conrfe
he cannot be challenged for having formed an o.
pinIon, but only for having deiqered it., a. third
Perions cannot know of an opinion being form
ed but by its having been delivered. And as
have ob!erved already, even the delivery of an
opinion is no caufe of challenge, ii it appears to
have been founded upon the jurors knowledge
OF facts, and not from par;iality in confequence
ofthis principle of law, it can be objection a
ganft juror being fworn, even though be li,ould
have the mott perfect knowledge OF every faa
relarive to the fIue, to try which he is about to
he fworn ION the contrary, the principal rea-
ION aligned why trials ought to be by Jurors
nom the 7'iciUage is the pretumpton thar they
viii DC belt acquainted with the facts which will
be put in iHue FOR their decifion.
| Suppofe perfon, fLmmoned as Juror to try
an indictment for aHaut and battery, or any
other offence, had feen the offence committed
and perfectly knew the offender, it would be no
caufe of challenge againR the juror, nor could
| he for that reafon be rejected at the fral---on
the contrary the law confiders him the better
qualified 20 fcrve in that cafe as Juror in confc-
quence of that knowledge. If in the initance
have put, iuch iuryman had declared that the
criminal had committed an ai1auIt and battery,
and that he was determined to find him guilty.,
this declaration being founded on the know
! ledge Of the juror as to the truth of the !fe
would be no ground for challenge---to fipport
a challenge, the juror mua flew an I'M ention to
act partially through favor or malice. 1t is
therefore no objection to perfon ferving as
juror becaufe he is alf, witnefs.
And 10 far is it from being the cafe that Jury
mans know edge OF the law, or his having de-
clared bis opinion of the law arfng in the cafe
TO be tried, ihouid he a cauf of challenge that,
If two or more perfons are indicted in the fame
indictment for the fame offence, and one is tried
AID convicted, juryman, who ferved on that
trial may be fworn on the fubirquent tta Of the
other perion joined in the indictment, and can
not be challenged, although as 20 the law ar ling
IN the cafe he had not only declared his opinion,
but even declared il on oath in the former trial.
So alto, ia the cafe of Judge, whether he is to
decide the law only, as in jury trials, or the law
and fact both, as here in the cafe of mpeach
ments; bis knowledge of the facts in the caufe
is no objection to his acting as Judge, and lac
may be called on TO give teftmony, and yet give
his deciiion in bis judicial capacity. In iuppor
of theie principles in addition 10 the authorities
adduced by my very refpeetable colIca; ue (Mr.
Key will trouble this honorable court with
Brookes ahridgInent Title, Challenge pl. 90
where be fays, It is caufe Of challenge 10 the
favor If the juror has declared that Mould he be
emPannelied he would give verdict for the
plaintiff.
(7o be eonfinaed.J
PRIVATE BOARDING & LODGING.
NE Subscriber (near Mr.. Southga,e's Store ON
Il ShockG Hill, fine healthy 6tuation) will furnih