Case Name: Almand vs. The County of Rockdale
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1886-12-21
Citations: 78 Ga. 199
Docket Number: 
Parties: Almand vs. The County of Rockdale.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
Almand vs. The County of Rockdale.
The petitioners to the ordinary for a new road over the land of another are, when objected to, incompetent jurors to pass upon the question of damages between the county and the land-owner.
December 21, 1886.
Jury and Jurors. Before Judge Boynton. Rockdale Superior Court. February Adjourned Term, 1886.
A petition was filed for the opening of a public road in Rockdale county, and Almand, through whose land it would run, filed a petition claiming damages. A jury was summoned to try that question. Almand objected to certain of the jurors on the ground that they signed the petition for the opening of the road, and to others on the ground that they were merchants and clerks in Conyers and were interested in the opening of the road. These’ objections were overruled. The jury returned a verdict for $20 in favor of Almand. He carried the case , to the superior court by certiorari. This was overruled, and he excepted.
Geo. W. Gleaton, for plaintiff in error.
J. N. Glenn, for defendant.

Opinion:
Hall, Justice.
That the petitioners to the ordinary for a new road over the land of another are, when objected to, incompetent jurors to pass upon the question of damages between the county and the land-owner, we think there can be no doubt. What was said in Beall et al., ex'rs, vs. Clark et al., 71 Ga. 849, we again repeat, with all the emphasis that a persistence in the views there expressed, after mature reflection, can impart, " that the trial by jury cannot be too carefully guarded to protect it from unfairness, but also from any uncertainty on that score. Jurors should not only be impartial, but above suspicion." Omni exceptione majores. The fact that the General Assembly of the State have passed an act to render the citizens of a county, or of an incorporated town or city, competent jurors in cases where such corporations are parties, we apprehend, does not go to the extent of qualifying them to serve where they are parties or quasi parties to the proceeding to be investigated, and which they induced the corporation to institute; their participation subjects them to the imputation of bias in favor of one party and prejudice against the other; they are not and cannot be, in the eyes of the law, indifferent and impartial jurors.
Judgment reversed.