Case Name: Henry Sparks, jun. against John Plankinhorne
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1807-03
Citations: 4 Yeates 383
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry Sparks, jun. against John Plankinhorne.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 4
Pages: 383–384

Head Matter:
Henry Sparks, jun. against John Plankinhorne.
In a-list of 48 names selected for a special jury, one of them appeared to be untruly described; the jury was struck ex parte, court refused to set aside the verdict, no merits being shewn, nor defence made.
This suit was brought on two promissory notes payable to the plaintiff, without defalcation.
The cause was tried at Nisi Prius on the 14th March last, by special jury, when a verdict was given for the plaintiff, for 1292 dollars 70 cents, without opposition.
Mr. Rawle, for the defendant,
now moved for a venire facias de novo, upon the affidavit of his client, that the list of 48 persons furnished for the special jury list, contained two names, “ No. 7, William Prichett, south Eighth street, merchant,” and “No. 28, William Pritchard;” that no such man as William Pritchett resides in south Eighth street; but a person of that name lives in Kensington. He stated that the jury had been struck ex parte by the plaintiff; neither had his client attended the trial; but that under the 1st, 2d and nth sections of the late act for selecting jurors, passed 29th March 1805, (7 St. Laws 183,) the suitors were entitled to a list of names of 48 real persons, with their places of residence; and hence there was error.

Opinion:
Per Ctir.
The present motion, if successful, would be attended with extensive consequences. Every person dissatisfied with a verdict given during a fortnight at the last Court of Nisi Prius, would be entitled to a new trial. Mistakes will happen, through the oversight of the commissioners and sheriff, by placing men removed out of the county, and even persons deceased, on the jury panel. But here the party did not attend to strike the jury, nor make any preparations for his defence. The case might appear under a different aspect, if it was shewn that the defendant had sustained a real injury. As things are, we deny the motion.
Messrs. Ingersoll and T. Ross, pro quer.