Case Name: BERRY vs. WALLEN AND BAILY
Court: Tennessee Superior Court of Law and Equity
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1805-09
Citations: 1 Overt. 186
Docket Number: 
Parties: BERRY vs. WALLEN AND BAILY.
Judges: Overton, j. and Campbell, j. White, j. absent.
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 186–187

Head Matter:
BERRY vs. WALLEN AND BAILY.
Mode of determining exceptions to Jurors. If there be several issues of fact directed by a court of equity the jury cannot find some and disagree as to the others
In Equity. Benoni Perryman being called as a jury man, it was objected that he was not indifferent, either on account of a cause of principal challenge, or favour.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Overton, j. and Campbell, j. White, j. absent.
It was determined in the case of Logan vs. Samuel Johnson, during this term, that the proper way to get over challenges for favour, was by triers. Let two men who are unexceptionable, be sworn; first as jury men, and then as triers, who shall determine any objection on account of favour. The triers were sworn, a witness was produced to establish a principal cause of challenge, interest, but failing in this, it was moved that Perryman should be sworn on his coir dire. This was objected to upon the principle that when triers were sworn, the exception must be supported by other testimony.
Per Curiam. When triers are appointed, it does not follow that they must determine all exceptions to persons offered as jurymen. It is only in cases of challenges for favour, and where the court may be in doubt, whether partiality does exist or not, that references to triers are made. The person may be sworn on his voir dire, and he may be asked any question, not tending to infamy or disgrace which may elucidate the question, whether he stands indifferent between the parties; as whether he feels indifferent himself; whether he has an interest in the event; whether he has given an opinion before hand; but not whether he has formed an opinion for such is the nature of the human mind, that it cannot remain in perfect suspense: The best men hearing of any transaction in society will unavoidably receive some impression but still may stand indifferent between the parties, as it respects the investigation and determination of the cause. But when the relation of a transaction so interests the mind, as to enable it to retain a recollection of its circumstances, so as to give an opinion we cannot well presume a perfect indifference. Giving an opinion is a proof of a strong impression having been made which is certainly improper in a jury man.
Another question of practice arose, where there are several issues of fact in equity; whether a jury can find one issue and disagree as to the other; and whether the court will receive the finding upon one issue and discharge the jury as to the other.
Per Curiam. They cannot, the finding must be all together or not at all.
3. Bac. 765. 5th,ed. Co. Lit.155 2. Roll.Rep. 363. 2. H.H.P. C 275. Trials per. pais 158. Salk. 153. pl. 3. 1. John. Rep 316.
See 1. Day R. 189.