The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-08-13
lsleantngs of Council,
oil THE
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 90.
Mr.. MARTIN, IN. continuation.

Mr.. MARTIN, in continuation.
This authority fl,ews that declaration, as I
have cantsnded, mutt have been made; but fl,all
now alto thew, that as have before ftated, the
declaration mnff be made frc:.. :.ioti%es Of par
TALLY, that is, from favour or i'll viii, to the
one or the otherparty. Forthis purpofe twill read
cd Hawkins, chap. 4s, feet. %. :" 1t hath been
allowed good caufd of challenge on the part
OF the priioner, that the juror hath declared his
opinion before hand, that the party is guilty,
or will be hanged, Or the like. Yet it hath
been adjudged, tina. If it ilial appear the Juror
made fuch declaration from his Knowledge of
the. caufe, and not out Of any liz eriX to the par
ty, it is no caufe of challenge" This doctrine
as old as the .eventh of Henry the ixth; during
whole reign it was determined, that though a
juror had faid twenty times, that if he was
tworn, he would give his verdict for one of the
parties, yet If he laid this from the knowledge
which he had of the matter in difPute and the
| truth of the cafe, fuch Juror was Indifferent. !;
but If he faid this from any affection to the par
ty, the juror in that cafe was .J,zvour0bLe, and
thus judge Darlington direded the triers fee
Brooke's ahrid. Title Challenge, pl. SIS.
In Viner's abrid. 81 vol. Pa. ESQ, we find the
fame principle recognized. 1t is there ftated
that &c if a juror fays twenty times that he will
pats for the one party, this is not principal
challenge, for it may be that he fpeaks it for
the notice which he has of the thing in ifiue, &
not for Affection" A deciion in the feventh of
Henry hxth, and anot herin the twentieth Of the
fame king are referred to; and the authority
from Brooke, Challenge, pl. SIS before mention
ed, is in the note introduced with approbati-
on.
In Hawkins Cap. 4s, feet. 90, we find in
confirmation of the petitions have taken. the
law thus declared: 6. 1t hath been adiudged to
be no good caufe of challenge, that the Juror
hso found other perfons guilty on the fame in
dittment, for the indictment is in Judgment Of
law feveraI againft each defendant for every one
mutt be convicted by particular evidence aeainft
hmfef." The fame principle is efabiificd by
the decions in 4vol. State Trials, pages IA s,
IFS hich he turned to and read,j VOL State
Trials o55, ESQ, alto thew that though pcrTon
is wtneis in the caufe, i. is no reafon he hould
NOT fcrve as juror, and aIfothat the knowledge
winch juror may have of the cafe to be tried
by INN, IS no disqualification. 1t ALTO News
how q1eitons of this nature are to be tried.
And toprove that the knowledge of the fn6fs
to be decided doth not in any degree interfere
with the right of a Judge to decide in the cafe,
and that any member of this honorable court
might be worn AS witnefs aud yet give his
declion in the caufe, i will read an authority
from State Trials, vol. 2, page 632, where Lord
Stafford, ON bis trial, puts this queffion to the
court, "ifI fhail name any Of the Houfe Of
Lords ms my witneiies, can that exempt them
from being judges" The anfwer given by the
Lord iiigb Steward was emo my lord, if your
ordihip has any witnenes among my lords here.
they may well teftify FOR you, and yet remain
fly IN the capacity Of your judges, for my lord
OF otrahord had a great many wiine1es, who
were peers"
Thus, though in disturbance the judges had
10 decide beth the law and the faSf, the know
LEDGE on nft in.
an objection to his deciding as Judge.
have faid alto that Juror cannot be exar,i
ned on oath to prove that he has made apy de-
ciaration which would he good caufe to cbal
'eBge him for favour. TO fupport this poGti-
on, will trouble the honorable court with two
authorities. The fra, from Leache's edition OF
hawkins ed vol. page s89 in the note. In the
text Vt IS mentioned as cauIe of CHALLENGE,
"tnat juror hath faid The prifoner is guilty, or
will DC hanged or the Ike, &c." In the no.e il
is itated that the priioner 0Ia not examine a
iuFor, concerning fuch matter, OH a .Doir dire,
becauic it POUNDS in reproach.
tne iecond, from Cookies cafe, ! Salk. 1888,
where it appears that Cooke being indicted for
high treafon, offered TO aR the iurors when call.
cd, IN orderto challenge then, 4" if they had
not fai1 he was guilty, or wouId be hanged"
And, by the court " this is a GOOD canG. of
challenge, but then the prlfoner nun prove II
by ecitnSBFS, not om " f6s moEf6 IF fbe j1-,-
man," |""
with theie obtefvaticns mall ref the queAi-
on as to what diiquaIities Juror, and fbaiI pro-
coed TO examine whether BaGet was inproner-
ly or illegally fworn upon that jury which tried
Calender have bewn that he might not on
W have formed, bet delivered an opinion refpee-
ing the sopdua of the crirainal, and yet that
unleis ias declarations tended to prove that he
did not mean to give Il juG and impartial yey-
oIct, but to deeide againG psopriety and right,
"r MSS competent to be worn on the jury. The
queitIon which was put to the Jurors by TIE
court no law required TO be PVT, nor vyasany
OF ne prymen bound b. any law to anfwer the
qge't'on-and the Judge was perfectly correA,
when I've md, upon the council inGaing that the
lnd'ftneot thould be read to The jurors, and
that they ihou'd then hr afked If they lad form