Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1867-10-23

KEoxvLLE, TENNESSEE, SEPTEMBER TEFH, 1867.
THoxAs II. corDwEII, ATTORNEY GENERAL RrroRTER.
WILLIAM A. BLACKBURN EFT AL. rs. WILLIAM HAYS.
This action for respas de boi, apoats commenced
ror William A. Blackburn, Thomas Henderson, Isaac Walk
en- Samuel Walker, Hawkins Campbell and William Lankin.
Judgment by default against Isaac Walker and
The Jury rendered verdict against William A. Blackburn
them Walker and Hawkins Campbell against
judgment BY default had been taken fifteen hundred
William LsRkn. Blackburn and Henderson moved for
trial which molten ovesrued They excepted and
appealed IN TO this Court.
Various have been assigned in argument. In the
view have taken Of this question: the one that b presented
at the threshold decisive Of the In empanneng the
jury the Court permitted the defendant in to challenge
syails himself of the PRIVILEGE to All OF which the
plaintiffs excepted. We not Of any decs
Jon Of this Court uPoa this question in civil cases BY the
tried in the Courts Of the State challenge two Ju
wthent assigning It is insisted foT defendant
errorhat 10y this statute each defendant is entitled to two
perempory challenges in civil case and therefore the plain
tif plaintiffs in suit are entitled to like number that
allowed each defendant To this construction We cannot
The language Of the act clear that each party to
suit meaning the plaintiff defendant, without regard to
number, shall have two peTemptory Challenges Inc word
used plaintiff defendant but party, which compoes
By its the plaintiffs and defendants to the suit The
action i Joint if any number Of plaintiffs defend
ante they embraced in the term party Bat different
rsnt By 44 in criminal under the grade Of
Petit larceny the State and the plaintiffs may each chaenge
]
the Of 1872 chapter 5 the provisions Of which are
substantially carried into the Code and embraced in the sec
on 4o in the construction e. this act this Court held in
the l against the State Yorger 2i6 when
defendants jointly tried each one Of them entitled
20 number Of challenges allowed by law and chaen
10 one excludes the party challenged as to all.
This the Court settled the authority OF he
King against Salisbury Pig0t and knosey, Flows Con-
100 The practice settled by that and has been
| departed FROM"
IL will BE- observed that there is difference in the Ian
susge giving the right to challenge in criminal and
civil In criminal the right given to the DC
epdsn n civil is given TO each party. In criminal
causes though defendants tried jointly yet the juds
ments De widely different In civil actions the Judgment
I is Joint they sued Jointly.
therefore opinion IN civil cases each party 70 the
suit whether comprising PLAINTIFF entitled q
but I've peremptoTy challenges.
Ths set OF 1905 allowing but two challenges 10 civil cases
was carried into the Code and is embraced in section
The long established practice has been 70 allow but two oha
lenges in civil cases. and unwilling at th tme site
souR acquiesenco the profession e change the con
/ structon that has been given % this act.
The Circuit Court therefore erred IN permitting the De
fendant In challenge than two jurors 10 EN-
nannenE the Jury this Our conclusions on thi
oInt beng decisive case Il is unnecessary TO noti
Inc other errors assigned, trial MUS be granted
Tho Judgment viii he reversed, and the cause rem sndo
Z A true copy. iNi'--i 49,.
! "''er'
/ NJ L. ptrTIR-oN. Clerk.