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

mind as to disqualify him by any
fair standard. He is answerable only
to his conscience for his dereliction
for no one can look into his mind, as
into his pocket, and ascertain its con-
tents. The law has left to the court
the estimation of jurors fitness.
The presiding judge sees and hears
the juror and so can far more wisely
determine his qualifications than the
appellate court can from case made
upon paper, and unless a strong case
of abuse of discretion by the trial
court is made to appear, its decision
on such a point cannot be disturbed.
If juror is honest enough fully and
fairly to state to the court the sources
of his information about the case
and the conditional or even satisfac-
tory opinion he entertains from that
viewpoint, remembering that usually
the only testimony available on ex-
animation of juror is his own, we
cannot say that the court erred in
accepting the jurors pledge to de-
eide the issue according to the law
and the evidence as given him upon
the trial, Notwithstanding his pre-
,,;o,,g ,,oanto1 attifii1a
The defendant questions the right
of the court to compel him to exer-
else two peremptory challenges to
the states one until he exhausted the
12 allowed him by sdction 1928, L.
o. L. The defense relies upon Sec.
1876, supra, to support his contention
that beginning with the defendant,
peremptory challenges should be
used one by one alternately between
the parties. That section was adopt
ed substantially from the laws of the
state of Washington by the legisla-
tive assembly of 1909, and reads as
follows: "The full number of jur-
ors having been called shall there
upon be examined as to their quail
fcations. first by the defendant and
then by the plaintiff, and having been
PASSED for cause, peremptory chal-
lenges shall be conducted as fol-
lows. to-wit: The defendant may
challenge one, and then the plaintifi
may challenge one, and so alternat-
ing until the peremptory challenges
shall be exhausted After each chal-
lenge. the panel shall be filled and
the additional juror passed for cause
before another peremptory challenge
shall be exercised, and neither party
is required to exercise a peremptory
lchallenge unless the full number Of
Jurors are in the jury box at the time
The refusal to challenge by either
party in the said order OF Attenuation
shall not defeat the adverse party oi
his full number Of challenges, and
such refusal on the part of said par
ty to exercise his challenge in prop
er turn shall conclude him as to the
Jurors once accepted by him, and Il
his right of peremptory challenge be
not exhausted, his further challenges
shall be confined, in his proper turn
to such additional jurors as may be
called. The court may, for gooc
cause, permit a challenge to be TAX
en- to any juror before the jury II
completed and sworn, notwithstand
ing the juror challenged may have
been heretofore accepted, but moth
ing herein shall be construed to in
crease the number of peremptor!
challenges allowed by other proyi
sions of law" If it is correct to as
sumo, as counsel for defendant ap
parently contend, that this section
annlies to criminal trials, the actiol
Of the court may be defended on tn
nrinciple that having adopted tn
statute of another state, we adop
with 1t the judicial construction givei