The Magnolia gazette. [volume] (Magnolia, Miss.) 1872-current, 1899-04-05

riage, or otherwise. In the cas-,
of Lewis V. State o S. & M. it il
said, with approval, that the ruls
is stated to be that an incompe.
tent juror may be set aside al
any time before evidence has
been introduced; and in the case
of Mcclure v. State, 81 Miss. /.
the same rule is distinctly laid
down in a case involving this
| identical question. While the
sufficiency of an objection to q
a juror is a matter resting for the
most part in the sound discretion
of the court, yet where there are
reasonable grounds to suspect
that the offered juror will act un-
der some undue influence, OF
prejudice, especially in capital
cases, he should be excluded from
the panel as incompetent. Nc
Guire v. State, 81 Miss.
Under all the circumstances
adverted to by us, it appears to
our mind, that the defendant 8
motion should not have been de-
MED, and that his challenge to
the juror Boyd should have been
allowed.
On the CROSSE examination by
the State Of the wife of the de-
fendant, who was introduced on
his behalf, she was asked il Hem
ry Farnham came to her house
on the morning in which the
murder of Causey and his wife
occurred, to which she answered,
"Yes, sir, he came there about IL
o'clock. y She was then asked
if she and her daughter were not
crying when Farnham came up.
and if she did not then tell Farm
ham that her husband had been
over there (at Causey' 81 and
had killed Scott and Maggie
Causey, and she denied the cry
ing and denied the alleged con-
yersation.
When Farnham was subse-
quently introduced as a witness
for the State and was asked as to
the crying of Mrs. Garner and
her daughter, and as to the al
legged conversation, which had
been denied by Mrs. Garner, on
her cross examination by the
State, the jury first being with
drawn, he testified that Mrs.
Garner and her daughter were on.
the gallery of the house, and cry
ing, and that Mrs. Garner told
him that her husband had gone
over there Ito Causey's) and had
killed Scott and Maggie, Mr..
and Mrs. Causey. This evidence
the court refused to permit to go
to the jury, and properly. After
ward, this witness was permitted
to testify, over the objection OF
defendant, that he first heard of
the murder about II O'Clock, on
the gallery Of the house of the
accused, and that Mrs. Garner,
her daughter and himself were
the only persons present. The
inevitable effect Of this evidence
upon the jury was to satisfy its
members, If believed by it, that.
Mrs. Garner or her daughter told
the witness that the defendant
committed the murder, though
there is no pretense even that
either Mrs. Garner or her daugh-
ter witnessed the horrible crime,
and that, by indirection the court
permitted that to be done which
it had correctly held could not be
done directly. That the evidence
was incompetent is manifest.
Applying the infalIible test laid
down by this court, in the elabo-
rate and exhaustive opinion de-
livered in the case Of Williams v.
The State, 7;' Miss, the error in
admitting this evidence Of Farm
ham is palpable. s'The test of
whether a fact enquired of in
cross examination is collateral,
is this, would the CROSS -examin-
ing party be entitled to prove it
as a part Of his case, tending to
establish his Plea Surely no
one will contend that, if Mrs.
Garner had been called as wit
ness for the State, the prosecut-
ing attorney should have been
allowed to ask her if she had not
told Farnham that her husband
had murdered the Causeys.
1t must be borne in mind, too,
that no cautionary instruction
touching this damaging evidence.
was given the jury, and they
were thereby left free to regard
It as eliminating evidence against
the accused. That its effect was