Blanchard v. Brown
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
This cause coming before a jury which had been struck on both sides, Mr. Hirst asked permission to make two more peremptory challenges, in the way allowed in the state courts under the act of their legislature (Act April 4, 1809, § 2) which provides “that in all civil suits each party shall be allowed to challenge two jurors peremptorily.”
Read the full summary
This cause coming before a jury which had been struck on both sides, Mr. Hirst asked permission to make two more peremptory challenges, in the way allowed in the state courts under the act of their legislature (Act April 4, 1809, § 2) which provides “that in all civil suits each party shall be allowed to challenge two jurors peremptorily.” He said that the state practice had been uniformly adhered to in this court for twenty years; a statement in which Mr. Randall and other gentlemen of considerable experience, had confirmed him in a previous case (White v. Brown [Case No. 17,538]), where the…
1Opinion of the Court
GRIER, Circuit Justice.
I have allowed these challenges to be made once or twice by consent of parties; but it is in violation of common sense and of the spirit of the decision of the supreme court of Pennsylvania which refused to extend the privilege in the case of special juries further than the letter of the act required, Shwenk v. Umstead, 6 Serg. & R. 351. Their language is thus, and we entirely agree with it: “The sense and spirit of the privilege is, that a party shall possess the power oi challenging at least two persons who may be obnoxious to him, but against whom there is no legal…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Watson v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889