Case Name: The State v. Stalmaker
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1805-11
Citations: 2 Brev. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Stalmaker.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
NOV. 1805.
The State v. Stalmaker.
The State has.no right to challenge peremptorily; but may challenge for cause; and the cause need not be shewn until after the prisoner has ’ gone through with his challenges.
On the trial of an indictment for passing counterfeit bank bills, a witness acquainted with the hand-writing of the president of the bank, will be permitted to prove the falsity of the signatures to the bilis, upon shewing that he is not interested in the event.
Indictment for passing a counterfeit bank hill of the Bank of the United States, tried before Waties, J., jit Edgefield district. ^ After the prisoner had made his peremptory challenges at the trial, and had accepted a certain juror, who was about to be sworn, the soli, citor objected to him on the part of the State, wilhout shewing cause. The right of the State to such a challenge was questioned, and made one of the grounds for p new'trial in this case. Another ground was, that ihe falsity of the signature to the bill should have been proved by the persons whose names were counterfeited, and not by any other person. A Mr. Martin was admitted to prove the counterfeit signature, who swore that he "was well acquainted with ihe President of the bank ; and that the signatures were false.
The prisoner was found guilty. The motion in this court was for a new trial. The motion was argued by Lesley, for the prisoner, and by Colcock, solicitor, for the State. Lesley quoted Peak on Ev. 8. Colcock quoted 2 Haw. 412.
Note See 2 Hayw 379. U. States v. Holtsclaw, in the Cirauit Court of th#' United States. The signatures of the president and cashier of the bank was disproved by persons in the habit of distinguishing the genuine from the cotm-•terfeit signatures, and conversant in dealings for bank bills, though they never saw the president write.

Opinion:
The court,
all the judges present, overruled the exceptions insisted on for the prisoner. By the statute, -S3 Ed. 1, the common law right of the king to an unlimited right of challenging jurors peremptorily, is restrained. Cause must be shewn; but need not be shewn till the prisoner has gone through with his tíhallenges. This statute, however, is not of force here. Martin was the best, evidence the nature of the case admitted of. The officers of the bank who signed the bills, could not be witnesses in the case, because interested.
New trial refused.