The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-02-18

Ocuttot hoSeis anu Stole 6evera nunOrc0 dollars
worth OF diamonds and other jeweiry. The owner
OF the stolen property fortunately awoke In time
TO raise an alarm ana secure the arrest OF the Gull
prit. In May last Barclay was tried before Re-
oorder Hackett, at the Court Of General Sessions
tried. convicted and sentenced eight years
to State Prison. His counsel, william
y. Howe, appealed from this verdict
to the Supreme Court. General Term. Among other
points raised by the counsel for setting the verdict
aside and 81 anting new trial was the unconsti-
tutfonalty OF the act passed BY the Legislature at
ITS last session. entitled Gan act In relation to chal
lenges ofjurors in criminal cases." or as 1t IL now
generally known. the new Jury law. Tho argument
was very fully reported In the HERALD at the tne.
The Court yesterday rendered Its dectsion Judge
ingraham giving the opinion Of the Court. 1t viii
ssn sss SSn Which Is IN @
new trial. however. but this Was on another point
seems, to raise The following is the opinion =
OPINION OF JUD0R NGRAHAA.
s % $ Sss
ssss 9 1s:a
Hsfa 2 s1 Z
s IF n tie s oasss snJ r.
smith the prlsoner bad been tried IN The General Sos
ssSs an. IN TIC
Of e jurors who had the former trial
e
as @ sa h W nss as
g e o s the
that tho act in rslss ssa.s & 3, ,n,o,. '
in criminal cases aWs i CO. Z. sHSois unconstitutional
dsssss AS
forever article section provides that no person
ss TSs due
upon by Bronson ~ Taylor Porter HILL l4O where
IF Or sS unless n mat
h % a 10 b
tutsd ana conducted according prescribed forms
S
benefit those rules the Common s' law BY
81 Ha e DaSs
sssn1ss saaa1n
ars to
conducted according to the CONNIE awvz., BY indict
sa a.
DG enc the % "a Of crime
Is
age which S they should be excused Serving pre-
many other resaatons in regard to trials which % not
Pssssss w s s aas
to these constitutional are no mita
" as se Hra q s4S eshso. g i'm
sssisa Sn ss%ns is on sSst
s"c Il II then
challenge and PrSvidng the aaaisa
that subject But does the law referred to make any
E sss
s 0r to Sn In
provides that he previous expression Of
n BE- Of ea
ense for principal cause provided the person proposed
ns Ssss5i sis9 eS sss
% p
that the proposed nror does not such
e sw
rules as to the qualification Of Jurors II we 60 back to
as it existed prior to statutory provisions must be
yslnSse egEss Lftlston VOL p a. IS sai ia
scSd
Which the matter sns Of fact ss}s6s is alleged which y
saSs have az cite E
phbqr jury S VS. Asa
Ss
As ii sss
VS. the
@ ss
true verdict upon the evidence. 80,
makes different provision and takes away no qualn
cation which existed previously.
been repeatedly aaudsea By tie Courts and adepsd Tor
Ss sd he " ss h
t s Ss o & he a ana no hs s
Of the matter dispute, but if the reports were cor
SsHc had an
ss
% ad the VS.
they could ny he Gase-IendeF an impartial
sns%sai%s sss$ ssS ssS q
e tue srop hnS sn Unn n e Ss :aa
strong enough TO him to PREJUDICE the case to
to be Competent such seems to be ''''' 80 Ae''
where the opinion IS formed from mere rumor or news
paper and would not influence the Juror n de-
he me mot
evidence and that the opinion or he has will
Be satisfied MA. such 1TSS does not
ss be e he
accepted must be free from bias and must satisfy the
ton 70 the JaIsr such i y this
than providing that the Juror he the
without being influenced by such impressions it
juror on that challenge and does not COM sne
pei the trial by juror not qualified, IL the
party challenging t 10 the challenge to the
Ii 1t be conceded that
TIE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION
included In its provisions the right have impartial
juries stated in the matter OF vermyea, Cow 5a5,
Still there is nothing In this law which takes
ncreres with its exercise 1t mere regulation OF the
challenge for principal causes prescribing what
be sufficient ground TO sustain such challenge The
Legislature may change regulate the mode Of cha-
engng So long the right Of jury trial preserved
and means provided by which impartial iuries can be OBJ
tee trial by jury There Is ground therefore, on
which the actreerred 20 be held be unconstitutional
The objection to the jurors who were held to be com
peten on the second trial when they had tried the cause
isof ,sS--yrTs - ~ .s;5Y.- ..----.sN
49, DIFFERENT CHARACTER. :.
Stephen Price was challenged for principal cause. He
stated he the rst Jury and heard the case That
he then formed his opinions that the view he then had of
the would control him. regardless OF what the
evidence might be- That his verdict would be the
on the same evidence and il sworn that he would render