Case Name: Eggleston against Smiley
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1819-10
Citations: 17 Johns. 133
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Eggleston against Smiley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 114–114

Head Matter:
*Eggleston against Smiley.
justice" 'who To^he^iainiifpl wife' üíe^rcia-held⅞ ren'ote to disqualify him from acting. Where a cause was tried by a íitrir o
I he relationship, to amount to a disqualifi-sanear””1 'to afford, of itsdt, partiality and
, of the jurors cause *wat re-fated to the fiamtwkset'not challenged at objection’ cannot be after-diere appearfne to be no unfair-trial. 1U the
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court.
Smiley sued Eggleston in the court below, and recovered a judgment against him. The justice, and one of the jurors who the cause, were half uncles of the plaintiff’s wife ; and the only questions, on the return to the certiorari, were, Aether the justice, on account of his relationship to the plaintiff, was disqualified to act as judge in the cause ; and whether the juror, who was not challenged at the trial, was not subJ . 7 . ° ' ject to the same exception.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
There is nothing in the return that affords ^he jeast color for any pretence of unfairness or injustice in the proceedings before the justice.
Ih the case of Pierce v. Sheldon, (13 Johns. Rep. 191.) the justice was the jather-m-law or the plamtra; and the court ⅛ was, perhaps, questionable, whether he was not, on the ground of that relationship, disqualified to try the cause. It was remarked, that "the gross indecency of an exercise of his judicial power in such a case would induce the court to scrutinize his proceedings with a jealous eye." In that case, the cause was tried by the justice, alone, who gave judgment in favor of his son-in-law. In the present case, there was a trial by jury. Besides, the affinity was very remote. We think the objection to the justice is not well founded. To disqualify him from trying a cause, the relationship must be so near, as to amount, of itself, to evidence of partiality and fraud. The objection to the juror, even if it had been sufficient at the trial, is now too late to be made here. The judgment ought, therefore, to be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.