Case Name: Edwin H. Kenrick v. Henry A. Reppard
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1872-12
Citations: 23 Ohio St. 333
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edwin H. Kenrick v. Henry A. Reppard.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 23
Pages: 333–335

Head Matter:
Edwin H. Kenrick v. Henry A. Reppard.
As a general rule, a party failing to make inquiry as to the competfency of" a juror at the time be is impaneled will be held to have waived all objection to his competency; and it is not enough, in order to take the case out of this general rule, for the party to show simply that at the-time of impaneling the juror he was ignorant of the fact of his incompetency, or believed him to be competent; and the rule applies as well to jurors summoned upon special venire as to jurors drawn from the box.
Motion for leave to file a petition in error.
The record shows that after the jury impaneled in the cause had sealed up their verdict, but before the same was delivered in court, the plaintiffs in error moved to discharge the jury, for the reason that one of the jurors, who had been summoned by special venire in the case, was not an elector of the county; and he supported the motion by affidavit, showing the fact of the juror’s disqualification, and also showing that the plaintiff in error, at the time of impaneling the jury, omitted to examine the juror as to his qualifications, or to object to him as such juror, for the reason that he was then ignorant of the fact of his dis— qualification and believed him to be qualified. The overruling of this motion by the court is the ground of error relied upon, and for which leave is asked to file a petition in error.
Selwyn N. Owen, for the motion:
1. The non-electorship of Cory was not a ground of '.challenge simply, but an absolute disqualification to sit as .a juror in "Williams county.
In Eastman v. Wright, 4 Ohio St. 156, it did not appear that the counsel for plaintiff in error was ignorant of the cause of challenge; and no objection was made until after verdict rendered. Moreover, the court in that case did not require a party to ascertain whether any disqualification existed “by inquiry of the juror only,” but by using the words “ or otherwise ” recognized other modes of inquiry as sufficient to preserve the party’s rights.
In the case at bar the counsel asked the court to issue a special venire, containing only the names of “ discreet and suitable persons hawing the qualifications of electors’’ and it 'had never been the custom in the county to ask a juror if he were an elector, and no such inquiry had been made for ten years. Kenrick was not only not negligent, but he made his objection as soon as he learned that Cory was not an elector of the county and before verdict.
Moreover, Kenrick’s counsel had known Cory as a resident of the county in 1867, and of Bryan (the county-seat), for nine months prior to the trial. He had then a right to -presume, in the ábseuce of contrary information, that Cory was a competent juror. Rice v. The State, 16 Ind. 298
Pratt & Bentley, contra:
The form of the special venire, so far as concerns the words “ having the qualifications of electors,” is identical with the venire issued for the regular jury. Its issnauce and service did not make the persons named therein jurors in the case. They were subject to the same examination, "etc., as. the members of the regular panel.
Kenrick’s counsel had known Cory as a resident of Defiance county at a recent date.
The disqualification was merely a good cause for challenge, and under Eastman v. Wright, 4 Ohio St. 156, Ken-rick has lost all right to assign it as ground for a new trial by his failure to make inquiry at the time of impaneling the jury. See also Shoemaker v. The State, 12 Ohio, 43; Simpson v. Pitman, 13 Ohio, 365, 367; Parks v. The State, 4 Ohio St. 234; Beck v. The State, 20 Ohio St. 229; Brown v. The State, 18 Ohio, 509; Fouts v. The State, 8 Ohio St. 98.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The general rule is, that a party omitting to examine or challenge a juror waives all objections to his competency. To take a case out of this rule, it is not enough merely to show the ignorance of the party, or his disbelief of the disqualification of the juror; and this rule applies as well to jurors summoned upon special venire as to jurors drawn from the box.
Motion overruled.