New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-06-11
A NEW LEASE OF LIFE.


.
Vious formation or expression Of an opinion or impress
mon In reference 10 the circumstances upon which any
criminal action at law based reference to the
sunt or Innocence OF the prisoner, or q present
opinon or impression in reference thereto, shall not
~ q aulacient ground Of challenge for principal
cause to any person who otherwise legally qualified TO
serve a Juror upon the trial OF such action, pro
vtded the person proposed juror who
may have formed expressed, or has sucn an
OpiniOp OF impression Aforesaid, shall de-
declare on oath that he verify believes that he
der an Impartial verdict according 70 the evidence sub
mted TO the jury such trial. and that such previous
" formed opinion impression will not bias or in
nueDoe his verdict and provided the court shall be
aasned that the person proposed juror does not
entertain such present opinion would influence bis
verdict juror. II will be that the intention0f
she act was not 70 place partial jurors upon the panel
but that great care taken TO prevent such result
The end sought by the common law was 70 secure
panel that would impartiauy hear the evidence and
render verdctthereon unnfueneed By any extraneOus
considerations whatever II the person proposed as a
Juror and win do this the entire purpose Is accom-
pshed. To secure this the statute requires that ne
shall make cath that DO this irrespective OF any
previous existing opinion or impression Not sausneu
that this NAV be safely relied upon, account OF the
dnculty Of determining by person having an opinion
or impression how far he may be unconsciOusy lnhn-
enced thereby the statute goes further and provides
shat the court shall be satisfied that the person proposed
h Juror does not entertain such present OplbIVb
e. would influence his verdict Juror. Surely
this latter provision, rightfully and inteleently
administered by a competent court, will afford protec-
ton TO the accused from injury from partial jury But
the accused has only this but the further protection
his right after challenge for principal cause has been
oveued again TO challenge for favor, and have this
tined and determined uninueneed by decision made
by the former charge. While the Constitution
the night OF trial by impartial jury the mode Of
curing and impanenE such jury is regulated by law.
either common statutory principally the latter, and
Al within the power OF the Legislature 10 make from
time 20 time, such changes in the law as IL may deem
expedient taking care to preserve the right of trial
by an impartial jury. Tue opinion OF Chief
Justice Nicholson in EasOn agt The State of
Tennessee is cited IN opposition 20 this
view This opinion was given upon the con-
stutouality Of a statute Of Tennessee upon the
SUBJECT but differing from that IN this State BY the
tennessee provided the juror shall be
competent, II he state oath that upon the law and
testimony trial, he believes he give the accused
fair and impartial verdict. This statement is made
conclusive Of the question.
The counsel for the accused further insists that the
Oense charged having been perpeusted II at all, prior
the passage OF the act not TO BE- applied in the
trial Of this IL held constitutional, but only TO
arising thereafter This position cannot be sustained.
while post fncto law valid. this has appca-
hon to the rules Of evidence the details OF the trial.
These may DO changed to prior equally with subse-
auent oTcnses.
THREATS AS EVIDENCE.
The counsel fer the accused offered TO prove that the
deceased ort time before the occurrence had made
violent threaJs against him. such as that he would beg
gar him first and then Kin him - al 90 prepared FOR
him all she time, my is Jim Fisk viii Kill
km !" I would kin him as would a ferocioUs
dog" This objected 70 by the prosecution and re-
tected by the court 10 which the counsel for the &C
Eused excepted In determining the competency Of this
testimony 70 must be borne In mind that evidence mad
a Or he my Vyhp her
The II eIeBsabo homicide, upon the
Ibat the Derpersted 10y the accused defending
himself against attempt blythe deceased TO murder
tnet great bodily injury upon him. and the fur
Iher question whether it was perperaed In resist.
ing an attack made upon him by the deceased, from
which he had reasonable ground to apprehend design
% murder or in1ct upon him some great bodily Injury.
Evidence OF threats made by the deceased which had
Been communicated TO Tho accused received by the
court Proof Of the latter facts was competent as tend
Ing TO create belief IN the mind OF the accused that
ME- in danger that he had 70 spprehend
some great bodily harm from the acts and motions Of
Ihe deceased when In the absence Of such threats
acts and motions would such belief But why
admissible upOn tins RrOundI For the reason that
threats made would make an attempt 10 execute them
probable when gu opportunity occurred and the more
ready belief Of the accused would be justified the pre-
else extent Of this probability
But attempt execute threats is equally probable
@hen not communicated 70 the party threatened, as
l.
n whether the attempt was In fact made, no
reason for excluding them in the former that would not
be equally ooReDt for the exclusion OF the latter the
latter being admissible only for the that the
Herson threatened would the readily believe him
self endangered by the probability Of attempt to
execute such threats.
z TbIests 70 commit the crime for which person is
nbon tia ase Constantly received evidence against
him. ~ circumstances proper 70 be considered in deter
mining the question whether be has in fsck committed
the crime for reason that the threats indicate in
tenton do it. and the existence OF this intention
probability that he has in fact committed IT,
Had the deceased just previous TO his going into the
bOte where the transaction occurred declared thst he
vas going there 10 kill the accused, and that he
prepared TO execute this purpose, think the evidence
would have been competent upon the question whether
be had In fact made the attempt when that question
Wa tgated And yet there is In principle no differ
snce between this and the testimony offered and re-
Iected The difference is only In degree
We not Of any decision OF the precise ques-
on by the courts Of this state but there have been sew
er In accordance with the above views in other States
Keeyer sg The State, 10 Georgia, 1884, Prtchette sgt
btate "a Alabama, Ss Campbell agt People 10 Illinois,
a.; Cornelius sgt. Commonwealth. IS B. Monroe, $50
DO Jewett agt. Burning n, N. Y a. it was held chat in
an action for assault and battery, alleged 20 have
been committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff
when witnesses present, proof Of previous III
will by the defendant against the plaintiff was compe-
tent Circumstance tending 20 show the commission
Of the acts charged by the defendant This aecorda
with the view above taken. / think the testimony
offered competent the exception to exclusion
well taken The preudicia 70 the accused
BY deprivng him Of the right have competent testi
nony his favor considered by the jury and cannot be
overlooked by the Court.
IMPROPER RUImGs CONCERNING TEsTIMoNY
Jennie Turner was introduced as witness by and