Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1830-12-01
Reported for the Providence American.
DIsQUALIrICATloN rAJUaOR
WHO Is MASON,
To sif IN case ~herc one of'he parties IS Il
BROTHER MASON.

y
BROTHER MASON.
AT the late November term Of the
Court of Common Pleas for TIE County Of
Newport, i'll trial OF an action of assump-
SIT between Richard Shaw, assignee OF
Benjamin Chace, plaintiff, and John &.
Borden, dciCndant; one of the Jurors,
named batcman Munro, was challenged
by the counsel for the plaintiff, on the
ground that he was a mason, and that
the defendant, Borden, was also ma
son.
The Objection was raised by George
Turner, Esq. and in support OF it he re-
he'd first, ON the authorities in Sd Black
stone, CHAPTER %, and Sd of Jacob title
jury, that the Juror "bcing both of the
same society or corporation, was prn-
cipal cause Of challenge propler G6cctmm;
which if found true could not be over
ruled. And secondly, such was the ma
turc Of the o0ttS or obligations, taken by
masons, as to oisqualily them for an I'M
partial decision OF cUSse, wherein one
party was mason and the other was not
! Ia support Of ulis last position, Dr.. Ben
janH ". Case, was called as witnc IS, to
prove what those obligations were.
When sworn, he produced book enti-
tied "Llghi on .uasoasy," and turned to
the obligations d the three first degrees
OF masonry, and also to tina, taken by a
! Royal Arch mason, and sworc that they
were there correctly given. Itwas then
stated by mr. Munro, the juror, that he
had taken but the three first degrees; and
the subsequent examination was confined
to them 1t was then urged TO the Court,
that the lnasonic institution, as TO its mys-
terics and symbols, was almost univer-
sal--that although it might be divided
into distinct Lodges, yet that it constitutes
but one society; and that its members
have the means of a secret communica-
ton with each other, not liable to dctec-
tionby the uninitated and which could as
well be held in Court, by a juror and a
party in Il cause on trial, as elsewhere
Conse quently that this mysterious rela-
ton struck at the foundation Of the ri hts
and liberties Of the citizen, and might
| prostitute the forms Of law TO The most mi
quitous purposes. That masons, as such,
under the obligations taken by them
and upon peril Of the most deadly and
direiul penalties, were enJoincd to assist
and favor each other, when it could be
done without material injury to them
selves or families.
The motion was opposed by Henry Y.
Cranston and Benz amin llazald Esq RS.
for defendant.
MIR. Cranston contcnded that no such
motion or challenge had ever been made
since the first settlement OF the state, in
IL cause between individuals. That it
never could have been III the contempla-
ton of law so to construc the authorities
cited, as was now pretended. That the
obligations taken by masons were not
such as had been rccited In Court; and
that the objection, If sustained, would
with as much proprlcty, apply to 'luakcrs
and Prcsbytcrans, as to masons. lie
stated that he was mason and knew
that their obligations as high as he had
gone, (and he had taken tw cnty degrees,
or thereabouts) enJolncd nothing what
ever, upon any man inconsistent with his
duty as Juror, or 'ciincsS; that the
challenge was introduced for stage effect,
and in a moment of excitement TO create
a prejudice against his client, whom he
admitted was a mason OF hteh degree.
MIR. Cranston then volunteered himself
as witness in relation to the masonic
obligations, and was sworn by the Chief
Justice, and examined by mr.. Hazard.
He stated in answer to a general qncs-
ion by mr.. Hazard, that those oaths or
obligations in Bernard's Light on Mason
~, verified by DIR. Cases testimony,
were not the same as those he had taken,
administered or known TO be administered
10 m0Sons, and that such as he had taken
or known to be taken, contained moth
ing that would prevent mason from de-
ciding impartially between brother
mason and a stranger.
Witness was here interrupted by mr..
Pcarce, counsel, for plaintiff who said
he presumed the Court did not wish mr..
Cranston's opinions, but the facts; and
would then draw their own conclusion
from these facts.
The Court said witness must conhnc
himself to facts, or at least state particu-
larly the facts upon which he formed his
opinions.
Mr. Hazard here said he had done
with the witness; that he had got all he
wanted ont oihim.
Mr.. Cranston was then cross cxamin-
cd by mr. Pearce.
"lou have said the obligations sworn
to by DIR. Case, arc not the obligations
taken by masons--in what do they differ
Witness said they differed in several par