Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1830-12-01
NO. 80.

sion against his client, who was \ Is,ason,
and d citizen Of another slate. That DR..
Case w.s not fan and impartial witness
II was notorious that he and the masons
had had great difficulty with each other
for years; und that il he (Hazsrd) had
been III the situation Of DIR. Case, he
would have had his right hand cut off,
before he would have given such estimO-
ny a. he had in the present instance
4 / hat the obligations OF masOns were to be
taken by tie Court to be what each one
Of them understood them to be. That
Munro had not opportunity TO declare
what he Understood by them. That The
penalties gFired 10 a brooch ofMsm, ,rers
against id~, and therefore not binding on
those who took them; and if they No un-
dcrstood them, they would not amount to
a Disqualification. If oaihs, they were
not administered by any court or masis-
tratcs authorized by law, for such purpos-
es, and were therefore void That any
decision the Court might make, would
fly like wild fire all over the u nitcd States
and no calculation could be made of the
mischief it might do.
. su', 4 tuIft Oli INC u'tll vi TIC
closed the objection. lie began by stat
ing that the challenge had been insisted
Oh by his client as a legal one; that it in
volved principle that might as well be
decided IN the present case as in any 9TH
or. If the objection was a legal one
and supported by evidence, the Court
would sustain It; otherwise not That II
.il,fit t, bn S.tii.,l ,nn ,y.N nr bn ,thar
and that it was not 50 important what the
rule was. as there should be some uniform
rule on the snbjcct:-He disclaimed, on
the part of the plaintiff, any other person
al objection to the juror, and all desire of
creating an undue prejudice against tho
defendant mr.. Borden. That certainly
the defendant being a citizen OF another
stale; WAS not the reason why the object
ion was now raised, and he was well as
sured it would not create any prejudice
against him in this court, or before any
jury in this state. That the challenge
rested on mere legal grounds, supported
as he conceived by sufficient legal evil
dcnce, and if the court agreed with him
! in these respects, the Juror must come oil;
that at the time the challenge was made
/ he did not suppose It WAS to operate on
/ the fraternity Of nasons "a he perceived
| il had done that il seemed from the man
ner in which they swarned in Court, that
n birthstone match had been applied to
their hive and put them all in commotion.
/ That circumstance he said, would not in
hucncc him at all in doing what he con-
ccived to be his duty on the occasion,
and he was sure il would not influence
the court; that the challenge was put on
two grounds both Of which were proved.
The Juror agrees he is a mason, and we
have proved that he has taken obiga-
tions rs such, as unfit him for a juror in
this cause in which he cannot stand in
different. The proof on our side is d-
rect explicit and postive-supported sub
stantialy nv mr.. Cran.ton, one Of their
own witnesses, who being examined sep
arately from the other witness, as they
had been by accident, disagreed so en-
tirely with them as to destroy the effect
Of their testimony against US. The obli-
cations L care not whether they are call
ed oaths or not we have proved; and
thcy have the tendency to bias and
warp the mind from an impartial decis-
ion where mason is concerned on one
side and not on the other. That they
arc considered binding by masons, is prov
cd by the course pursued by the witness
es who have been examined on the other
sidc--and the penalties to be inflicted for
n breach of them are of an illegal and di-
abolical description. If any additional
proof of this were wanting, it might be
/ found in the refusal of the witness to state
| distinctly and in precise terms what
these obligations are. The most we know
about them is they have a secret means
;. accommodating with each other, wher-
! ever they may have chance to be, and
when such communication is made, the
person who receives it, is under the most
deadly penalty, if he fails TO answer to
and comply with it. Men so situated can
not be safe Jurors in free country OF
known laws where the oath taken in court
is intended to be paramount to all private
and mere personal considerations.
\ The Court took the matter under nd
viscment and adjourned.
\ In the afternoon when they met, they
gave their opinion that the Juror must
come Off"
\ Mr.. Pcarce who was then in Court,
rose and said 81 thank God that yet
live in land governed by law"
In the course Of the trial that epsued
in reply TO some remark of the counsel
for the defendant, one ofthe Judges said,
the Court did not set the juror aside mere
ly because hc was n mason, but on ac-
count of the obligations that he had TAX