Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-04-21

terial available for jurors is analo-
gous to what is contemplated in
Section 1873. L. o. L., to the effect that
such an opinion shall not of itself be
sufficient to sustain challenge to
particular juror, but the court must
be satisfied from all circumstances
that the juror cannot disregard such
opinion and try the issue impartial
ly. 1t is uniformly held that a
change of venue is discretionary with
the trial court The jury in this case
was empaneled after the examination
of SO men. We cannot say that the
judicial discretion was abused in de-
nying the application to change the
place of trial The decision of trial
courts denying motions to change
the venue on much stronger showing
than exhibited here was upheld in the
following cases: State " Pomeroy,
80 Or 16, 10; State " Savage, 36 Or.
191, 1873; State v. Armstrong, 4S Or.
2O7, 211; State v. Smith, AZ Or. 4S5,
4S7; State " Mizis, As Or 165, ia.
Twenty-Five assignments Of error
in the bill of exceptions relate to the
manner of forming the jury. At the
beginning of the trial there were
but seven jurors of the regular panel
in attendance. The names of these
were taken from the box at once and
the court directed counsel to proceed
with their examination, to which the
defendant objected until the full
number OF IL had been drawn The
court overruled the objection and the
seven were examined with the result
that four Of them were excused for
cause. Afterwards special venires
for so, 40 and 25 jurors were issued
in succession, from which the re-
mainder of the jury was empaneled.
AS this progressed the three remain
ing jurors of the original seven were
peremptorily challenged by the state,
so that rs to them no harm was done
the defendant; he lost no challenges
on either of them.
In respect to the formation of the
jury, Section 116, L. o. L., prescribes
that when the action is called for
trial the clerk shall draw from the
trial jury box of the court, one by
one, the ballots containing the names
of the jurors until the jury is COM
pleted or the ballots are exhausted
II the ballots become exhausted be-
fore the jury is complete, the sheriff,
under the direction of the court, shall
summon from the bystanders, or the
body of the county, so many qualified
persons as may be necessary to CON-
plete the jury" According to section
1905, L. O. L., the sheriff summons
persons named in the panel by CIV
ing written notice to each of them
personally or by leaving the same al
his place of residence with some per-
son of suitable age and discretion
AS each Juror from the special ven
Tres was examined and the defendant
inquired of him by whom he was
served and to each one answering
that he was served by some person
other than the sheriff himself in per.
son the defendant objected because
of that. This, in our judgment
amounts to a challenge to the panel
which is forbidden by section 1T
L. o. L.. The only challenges al
lowed are peremptory or for cause
Challenges for cause are arranged
under two subdivisions: 1. General
that the juror is disqualified from
serving in any action; or 2. That hi
is disqualified from serving in the
action on trial. The general causes
for challenge are: first, convic