Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1855-12-19
Is a Know-Nothing Fit to Sit on Jury2
SUPREME CoURT-GENERAL TERM.

The People Of the State of NeD Yorh
against Edsoard Christie and otters.-OPIN-
ION -MoRRIs, J.-FAcTs.-The defendants
were jointly indicted for riot, committed in
the Ninth Ward of the city of New York on
the fourth day of July, 1853; the defendants
pleaded not guilty and on the fourteenth day
of December, 1858, the issue of traverse SO
joined came on to be tried before Hon. Fran
els Tillou, Recorder, dc the defendants
being tried jointly.
On the first jnror-Samuel Carson-being
called, he was challenged for principal cause
by the defendants, on the ground of his hay-
ing formed or expressed an opinion of the guilt
of the prisoners, or some of them This chal-
lenge was denied by the people, and issue
was thereupon joined. The defendants coun-
sci, John McKeon, offered as a witness, to
prove the challenge, the juror himself. This
was objected to by the people, and the objec-
ton sustained by the Court to which decision
the defendants counsel excepted.
1t was admitted, for the purpose of argu-
ment as to the challenge of jurors, that on the
fourth of July last past. there was procession
of society called the Ancient Order of Hi
bernians-a society composed of Irishmen
and Roman Catholics that the defendants
were members of that society end it was ad-
mitted for the purpose of argument as to the
challenge of Jurors, that portion of the de-
PENDANTS arc Catholics, and portion foreign
ers that the alleged riot took place in the
Ninth Ward of the City of New York, through
which the procession passed, and that during
the riot, expressions of hostile and insult
ing character were used by some of the parties
engaged-as, for instance, "Kill the d Id
Iric ha n of
b-s," Kill the d--d Yankees" 1t
was also contended by the defendants counsel,
for the purpose of the challenge to Jurors,
that a strong prejudice existed among the po-
lice and inhabitants of that section of the city
against Irish and Roman Catholics.
Several jurors were called and rejected
some were peremptorily challenged; one of
the jurors being called and challenged to the
favor, on the ground that he had a bias, pref
udice, or impression against the prisoners, or
some one of them, triers were appointed by
court; one juror so challenged for favor and
was rejected by the triers, when James Black
was called as juror, who was challenged to
the favor by the defendants counsel on the
ground that the juror called had a bias, preju-
dice, or impression against the defendants, or
some of them.
This challenge was denied by the people,
and issue was thereupon joined. The same
triers as in the former cases were by consent,
in this case appointed. The defendants called
as witness to prove the challenge, the juror
SO called, who, after answering several qucs-
tons in relation to the ground of challenge,
was asked the following question.
Q. Have you any bias or prejudice against
Roman Catholics
To this question the district attorney objec-
ted, and cont ndee that the juror was not bound
to answer, if he thought it would disgrace
him. The Court sustained the objection of
the district attorney, TO which decision the
counsel for defendants excepted. The Court
thereupon informed the witness that he was
not bound to answer the question, if in his
opinion the answer would tend to disgrace
him; to which instruction and decision the
defendants counsel excepted. On the ques-
tion being put, the juror declined to answer.
The defendants then moved the Court to
compel the juror, as being witness, to an
swer, which the Court refused to do; to which
decision and refusal the defendants counsel
excepted.
Timothy H. West was called as witness
on the part of the prosecution, and testified
as follows: That he lived at No % Eighth
avenue; is house carpenter; saw the process
sion there was a space of twelve feet or
more through which the stage-driver passed
heard the expression, s' Kill the id SON of
a b-h." After witness left his son in Troy
street, witness returned to the stage. He
then met policeman, and told him the Cor
der of Hibcrnians had attacked the stage
driver, and were about to murder him on the
spot Mcpherson went in and told them to
diperse; two men made a pass at him [ step
ped back to Eighth avenue he did not see the
MAI shal at the time of the affair with the
stage.
On being crozs-examined, the witness was
asked
Q. Do you belong to the Order of United
Americans
This question was objected to by the people
The objection was sustained by the court, and
to this decision the counsel for the defendants
excepted. The following question was then
put:
@. Do you belong to any Order?
This question was objected to by the people.
The objection was sustained. and to which
decision the defendants excepted.
OPINION.
AS the foundation of American jurispru-
dence is the right to be tried by an impartial.
unprejudiced jury /; it is a right paramount to
all others, aud is not to be sacrificed to the
fear or apprehension of wounding the feelings
of others.
In this case a new trial should be ordered
for the following errors:
l. The juror, Carson, should have been
received as witness TO prove that he had
formed OF expressed an opinion of che guilt of
the prisoners, or of some of them.
The juror who has formed an opinion and
has not expressed it is the only source from
which the fact of the {. formed opinion" can