The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1830-11-25
Rsporfcd for h' Psorissnee Anriedn.
DISQUALIFICATION OF A JUROR,



% SIT in "a case ,rlsre one Of Me parties IS a
BROTHER MASON. -
AZ the late Nv opbr ierm tthe Cour'
Of Comm,n Pleas FL the County OF NV !
port. in trial of an action Of assunpsit be. !
tween Richard Shaw. assignee oi Bspji !
min Chscc, plaintiff, and John &. B,rjcn.
defendant; one Of The jurors. named Bate !
man Munro was challenged by the coun |
sci for the plainlilf On The ground thai he
was a maS.,p. aud that the de'cnhant, Bor. |
den. was also mason.
The objection was raised by George
Turner, Esq. and in support OF Il he relied
first. on the authorities in 81 blackstone.
chapter 23, and 3 of Jacob title Jury, ,hai
The Juror being both of the same society
or corporation. was principal cause ot
challenge propier nDeclam; which IT found
true could not he ovcrr'lled. AL second
", such was the na,urc Of The oaihs or oh
hgaiions, taken by m1sons. "a To d,-qualify
them for an inlparti,i decision OF . csus",
wherein one party was mason andthe o
thcr was not rE.
In support Of this last position DR.. Ben
iamia W Case was called as u Witness. Z"
prove what those obligations were. When
on Nsssnrp.' and turned to the obligations
of the three frs, degrees OF Mnsonrv -
also that taken b, .t"yai Arch NJ son, <
sw ore that they were there correctly -f.eL.
II was then stated by Nr. 'iuGro, the juror,
that he had ,ssen but the three fist do
Jrccs; md thosubscq lent examination was
, ;nrfrrd 10 them. It was then urged tc
! ,hc Conit, that the masonic institution, ~
! ~ it's mysteries and svWbols, was almost
universal that although il nIig i.bo divld
! d into Ai$iimsi lao iges. get that It consti
! u,es but one SDcietg "a thatiis mcmbers
| rave the means OF seerct communication
! With each other, not liable iodciection by
| he unipiti.t dad which cou well b.
held in Court, by Juror nnd n party in u
cause on trial. ~ elsewhere. Eanseqnent
" that this mys,Priuus relation s'rnck at
lihe foundation Of the rights and liberties
1T tho citizen, aud might prnstftHte the
forms of law to the most inqnitous pur
poscs. That Rassns, as such, under the
,blIgations taken by thcm and upon per
il of tho most deadly and dircful pennllics
we're enjoined to assist aud favor each o
| 'hcr, when it could be done without mate
rial injuy to themselves or families.
The motion was opposed by Henry y
Crans,on and benjamin Hazard, Esqrs. iol
defendant.
Mr.. Cranston cen,cn2ed that no such
motion or challenge ha4 ever been made
since The Grst settlemnHt of tho state, in .
causc between individuals. Thst il ncvci
could have been in the contemplation n
law so to construe the aaihOrities cil
vas now pretended. That the obliga !,
taken by aasons were not such as h,
been rccitci in C"nG, and that the ohisc
= 'ion, if sustained. wouli with as mach pro
rrety apply to Qusters and Pre- .tytcriaRs
rs to maseas. Iic stated ,ha, he was
m ION aud knew that their obligations n
high IA he had gone, (and hr had takel
twenty degrees. rr thcrcabolrs} enjanc,
nothing whatever, upcN any man incsasi :
tent with his duty as iHror. or wiiness
! that the challenge was intro laced for stage
effect, and in a moment m cxritcrrert L
create prejudice ngans' his client, WHOM
: he admitted was n mason of high degw~.
Mr.. Crans,nn then volunteered hi,nsel
asa witness IN RELATION to tho masonic oh
: legation 'nd VAS swerH ny th" Chief Jus
tice. aud examined by Mr.. Hazard. III,
stated in answer To grnccsl question b,
, Mr. Hazard. th-t those oailrs or obligation
. IN Brruarl's Light on Masonry. ycrific,
BY DR.. Cases Testimony. wore not the same
as those he h,d takes. administered y
known to be administered 10 mnsoas, an,
that such as he hal taken or knewa to b,
taken. contained no,lsieg that would pre-
; veat u mssoa from deciding impaitially be
twrcn brother masoa and stranger.
Witness was here interrupted by 81
Pcarcc. counsel for plaintiff. who sud h
presumcd the Court did not wish Mr. Gran
stpn7s opinions, bat the .f,cfs: and wont
thea draw thcir own conclusion from thes
T iacts.
The Csnrt said witnrss must conhn
r himself 10 f,cts, or at least state par,icu
, iariy the facts upon which hc formed hi
opinions.
, Mr.. tIaEard here spid hc had lcnc wit
' ,hc witness; that lac hsd GO, all he wan,e
: ont ot him.
Mr.. Crsns,ea was thea cross examine
4 by Mr. pearcc.
"Ym have said the obligations sworn
d hy pr. Ease. arc not the obligations take
V BY musons in what do they differ ?" Wi
: ness said they differed ia several partset
,. lars.
' Ques,ion-wiil you state those par,ic,
lars:
v Aeswcr---I suppose need no, state pa
9 ,icul,rs; LIDO not kaec that iom ai iber
10 do Sc. Bu, vi u say ss hef"re ssi
,ha, the masonic obligations, as undo
stood ihers. do not contain any thing !
!. con sistcm with mans duty as Juror
~ The Court here said Mr.. F~srcc's que
,ion was prcper one for the witness
:, answer, md that his answer did not me
:" the question.
Mr.. Pcarce thea said le would ~esd {,
D. obligations as recorded in 'Lgh, on NJ
8, sonry.r sentence by sentence, and wor
A. at the end ofcach ask the witness If he c
x. iec,ed 60. or admitted IL, and he wen,
,c to do go ,hc witness asserting to al "
- q rnuinn nf sAnasn n.ers, rcrhal nlte 10