Davis v. Bangor & Piscataquis Railroad
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions and motion. On petition for increase of damages assessed against the respondents by the county commissioners, for land of the petitioners taken by the respondents for the location of their road, and for a jury, on appeal, to estimate the damages.
Read the full summary
On exceptions and motion. On petition for increase of damages assessed against the respondents by the county commissioners, for land of the petitioners taken by the respondents for the location of their road, and for a jury, on appeal, to estimate the damages. The jurors summoned duly appeared on Jan. 24, 1872. Before they were sworn, the respondents moved that the names of all the jurors summoned be placed separately upon tickets in a box, and drawn and impanelled in the manner provided in R. S., c. 82, § 66; and that they be allowed to peremptorily challenge two jurors. But the presiding…
1Opinion of the CourtKent, J.
All the questions, except one, arising in this case have been considered and decided in the case of the Petitioners v. William McComb, ante.
The question remaining has reference to the impanelling of the sheriff’s jury. The respondents claimed that the names of the juroi’s summoned should be placed separately in a box and be drawn and the jury impanelled according to the provisions of R. S., c. 82, § 66, and also claimed a right peremptorily to challenge two jurors.
We think it is very clear that it was not the intention of the *305legislature that these provisions of the recent statute should…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Brown v. Rome & Decatur RailroadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Colorado Springs Co. v. HewittSupreme Court of Colorado · 1877