American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1823-01-07
xoa TIE wlrcnMAT

llenge, by propoundlng TO him, under the director
lot the Court the following questions, and requiring
r his answers thereto.
Q. J. Doyou believe in the obligation of an oath
A. |. An honest man, to speak the truth, requires
not an oath to bind him; and dishonest one vii
. not be bound by an oath.
@. Q. Do you believe in the existence of Cod
A. Q. 1t appears reasonable to believe, that al
S things are governed by superior Intelligence
Z rather than by blind fatality.
: The same question being repeated and more
drect answer required, Juror replied.
Q. do believe in the existence of Cod.
Il @. 8. Do you believe In future state of rewards
land punshments?
A. am ignorant of them. The subject is be-
Iyond my comprehension.
Il The Court on hearing the answers Of the Juror
TO the questions proposed decided that he was in.
competent to serve as one Of the Jury. He was
consequently rejected, although it was the prisoners
wish that he should pass between him and his coun
try.-The decision OF the Court in this case being
novel in its character, and involving future disabili-
ties on the part of the Juror, which go not only to
the humiliation OF his responsibility and usefulness
I'm Society," but his security also; menacing hkewlsei
not lew, il is believed, of our citizens should the
Iaqulslon. with deprivation of the same privileges
and its consequences it becomes matter oil no
small Importance TO every member of the commu-
nity, to have its rectness investigated Without
promising any thing further, shall attempt briefly
F." show, that so far from having claim to be con
adered in that point of view it is at war with the
pialnest principles OF the common law, and violates
the constitution OF the United States as well as The
constitution ct the state, in several OF their most
important provisions
II conflicts with the plainest principles OF the |,
common LAWN the trial OF either civil causes OF
criminal prosecutions, it will not be denied that the
atness or qualifications Of Jurors should be such.
as not to be doubted The particular Jurors, saysl
Blackstone, should be omni maiores exceptions
above every exception. Hence the necessity oil ;
Challenges. In criminal prosecutions they NAV be
made either on the part of the state, In behalf Of
me prisoner and, as in ivl SUITS are OF two sorts
challenges to the whole array, that is an exception
% The whole pannel; and challenges to the polls,
winch are exceptions to particular Jurors. These :
again, are either peremptory favour the prisoner
VINO may without showing cause, challenge to ]
be number of 20; or such rs must be supportedl
y causes assigned, which are reduced to heads by -
pr T. Coke: propeI honors respectum; propterI, !
fectum; propter defectum and proper dectum. ;. ).
l. Propter honNris respectum; as il "a Lord Of Par L.
lament De empanneled OH Jury, he may be chal =,
ehged oy either party or by himself There being -
% LORDS OF parliament IN thu, country as in Great 81
britain this species OF challenge is excluded here +,
fropter,detectnm As a Juryman be an alien
orn, this is defect fbrh;( 1.-The be slave or bond
AN This IS defect Of liDerv and he canno be bcr to
'esals homo, Tree ard law al man But the by
rnclPal deficiency is dele Of s,ae sufficient to IL
uahly him to be Juror. This depends upon a W
aiety OF statutes in Great briti1n. Here Juror
aust be free holder a
$. jurors may be challenged proptcr afTec,,r, Ibs
II suspicion OF bias or par litY. This may be eli pl
ier PrMc'pdt challenge, or 10 the fduor prin- 70
Pat chalienge Is SUCH where the cause assigned te
Ates WIN II prtmd tdcie evident marks of suspi Ia
on' elher Of malice or favor as that Juror IS of co
IN to either paIy that he has an interest in the pr
ause that there is an action depending between OF
IN aud the party. These and others that MIGHT ~
named are principal causes of challenge which IN
Tue' cannot De oNerrued. Challenges to the ia III
o' are where he party has no principal challen tel
" oolects only to some proba /: circumstances oil %
lSpclon as acquaintance and the like; the validity trC
winch aust be lett to the dete mlnaon of trers wi
nose office is to decide whether the Juror be Cayor IL
Die or unIavorable. dis
8 Fropter delictum; for some crime or INSIDE
eanor OF which he had been legally conyicicd sit
tecung his credit and rendering him Infamous lie
nc no record OF any conviction of an Infamous vi
'afacter was or could have been exhibited against mi
m by the prosecutor, for Of no criminal offence th
rs he ever been convicted. The Prosecutor, how. no
'er prompted by the suspicious Of his own breast vi
solved that the Juror should by 'eng put through m;
ihqusltorial process We made to furnish excep- lin
ons to himself. " 80
no" IN regard to the examination Of Juror il is ,h
'Piessiy lad down ~ IAstune, that altbouyb wi
may be examined on his qualification venitaten, tht
cefe' 70 speak the truth with respect 10 such eau lie
8 OF challenge as to his dshonnur or dis cb
eot' yet he cannp IN resat 10 any crime. or any IN
ing which tends TO his disgrace OF disad Ter
l'chs calculated to sink him il the eyes Of the IN
immunity or Operate to his injury. la the case as
der consideration the questions proposed were The
oil KIND that would have ende to the discred,t orr
d prejudice Oh the Juror had they ,ner, rs.a.i.