Borst v. Beecker
New York Supreme Court
IN error from a justice’s court. Beecker sued Borst before the justice. Issue being joined between the parties, at the request of the plaintiff, a jury was summoned; and when the jurors were called to be sworn, the defendant below objected to two of the jurors on the panel, on the ground that they were aliens, and had not been naturalized, and offered to prove the fact. It was admitted, that the jurors were freeholders, and had been inhabitants of the town, for many years.
Read the full summary
IN error from a justice’s court. Beecker sued Borst before the justice. Issue being joined between the parties, at the request of the plaintiff, a jury was summoned; and when the jurors were called to be sworn, the defendant below objected to two of the jurors on the panel, on the ground that they were aliens, and had not been naturalized, and offered to prove the fact. It was admitted, that the jurors were freeholders, and had been inhabitants of the town, for many years. The justice overruled the objection, considering their being freeholders as a sufficient qualification.
1Per curiam
The words of the act (Laws, vol. 1. $ess. 24. c. 165. s. 12. p. 496.) are, that the constable shall summon, as jurors, “ twelve good and lawful men, being freeholders or freemen of such city, or freeholders of such town, where the cause is to be tried,” &c. Though the two jurors objected to were freeholders, they were not “ good and lawful men,” within the meaning of the statute, and, therefore, not competent jurors; The judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wassum v. FeeneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Stone v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1840
- Walther v. RaboltCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866