Case Name: Streeter against Hearsey and Wife
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1814-05
Citations: 11 Johns. 168
Docket Number: 
Parties: Streeter against Hearsey and Wife.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 168–169

Head Matter:
Streeter against Hearsey and Wife.
NEW-YORK,
May, 1814.
It is a good lenge to a Juror, in^ajusthat he is not theeetown6r in ktriedhe(5cZ seg If JVÍ ¿2 L. 390.) ’
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. ' IJearsey an(* his wife sued Streeter, before a justice, in Antwerp, in the county 0f Jefferson; and issue being joined, a venire was issued, at the request of the defendant, to summon a jury. The jury being called, on the return of the venire, two of the jurors were objected to by the defendant, on the ground that they were not freeh°lders‘ One of the jurors stated that he had a freehold in the county of Otsego, and the other that he had a freehold in the town of Rutland, in Jefferson county; and the return stated that they were admitted and sworn as jurors. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, on which the justice gave judgment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The statute (sess. 36. c. 53. s. 9. 1 .N R. L. 391.) requires the jurors in a justice's court to be freeholders of the town where the cause is to be tried. It is not stated positively in what town the cause was tried, but it was certainly tried in the county of Jefferson, and it is necessarily to be inferred from the return, that the trial was in the town of Antn~erp. One of the jurors challenged by the defendant, had his freehold in the county of Otsego, and the other in Rutland, in Jefferson county. Neither of them, therefore, were competent jurors within the aét: and it does not appear that the objection was wDivecL The judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.