Tatum v. Preston
Mississippi Supreme Court
Error to the Circuit Court of Clay County. Hon. James M. Arnold, Judge. The rule of the Circuit Court, under which the objection to the peremptory challenge of the juror was sustained, is as follows': — “When a' full panel is presented to either plaintiff or defendant, the party to whom such panel is presented must make all his peremptory challenges to the panel as it is presented, and is not allowed, after other jurymen are called to fill the places of those challenged, to…
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Clay County. Hon. James M. Arnold, Judge. The rule of the Circuit Court, under which the objection to the peremptory challenge of the juror was sustained, is as follows': — “When a' full panel is presented to either plaintiff or defendant, the party to whom such panel is presented must make all his peremptory challenges to the panel as it is presented, and is not allowed, after other jurymen are called to fill the places of those challenged, to make peremptory challenges to the members of the original panel, but must confine his objections to the jurymen called…
1Opinion of the CourtChalmers, J.
A full jury was tendered to the parties, and the plaintiffs announced themselves satisfied with it. The defendant peremptorily challenged one member of it; another person was *655called in his stead, and accepted by both sides. The defendant then wished to challenge another member of the original panel, but was forbidden by the court (upon the objection of the plaintiff), on the ground that, when the full panel was presented to him, he should have challenged as many members of it as he desired, or as he was allowed by law. We see no objection to this ruling. It is understood to be in accordance…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Nicholson v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1903
- Thompson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1880
- Avila v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1935
- Greenfield v. PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1878