of venire facias.12 This led to enormous abuses, chiefly in the packing of juries and the blackmailing of citizens'13 to remedy which, American statutes have generally provided, with more or less particularity, for the preparation, a given time before the commencement of any term of court, or at other stated periods, of a list of persons, within the county or other jurisdiction, from whom jurors are to be summoned. The preparation of this list is generally, though not always," confided to officials other than the sheriff, such as the judges of general elections, or the county canvassers of the votes polled at general elections,15 the trustees of the township or the councilmen of wards,10 other town officers," special boards,18 county courts," or jury commissioners.20 Penalties are frequently imposed upon the designated officers for the nonperformance of this duty," though in respect of the manner of performing it the statutes are sometimes, though not always," regarded as directory." 23 "In the Federal courts the practice is now chiefly regulated by a recent statute, which commits this duty to the clerk of the court, and to a jury commissioner appointed by the judge, who shall be a well known member of the principal political party within the district opposed to that to which the clerk belongs." "From the general list thus selected of persons eligible or liable to serve as jurors at the succeeding term of court, the list of names actually to be summoned, called either the array or panel, is drawn by 12 See Thomp. & Mer. Jur., Sec. 44. R. S. La., 1876; Rev. N. J., 15 R. C. Iowa, 1880, Sec. 234, et seq. 18 Ge. Laws Colo., 1877, Sec. 1877; Sec. 1462. 19 R. C. Md., 1878, Art. 62, Sec. 2. 20 G. S. Ky., 1879, page 573, Sec. 4. 1 Comp. L. Kan., 1879, Sec. 2693. 22 Gladden vs. State, 13 Fla., 623. 23 Forsythe vs. State, 6 Oh., 19. lot from a box or wheel, at a time and at a place, either in open court or otherwise, upon public notice, by the designated official or officials, and sometimes in the presence of other designated officials, in a designated manner, all the conditions and details of the proceeding being generally prescribed by statute." Although, as in the case of the general list,25 penalties are frequently prescribed for failing to make a drawing," yet a literal compliance with the terms of the statute is not necessary to the validity of the panel." On the contrary the statutes are generally regarded as directory,28 the object being to secure a proper apportionment of jury duty among those liable to perform such duty, as well as to secure impartial juries," and the usual presumption of right action on the part of the officials charged with this duty is generally sufficient to cure irregularities in its performance, though obviously a general disregard of the essential provisions of the statute may have the effect of vitiating the array.” 31 32 80 In order to secure a fair jury each side has the right known as challenging. Challenges are of two kinds: (a) challenges to the array, and (b) challenges to the polls. Challenges to the array are directed against the manner in which the list of jurors have been drawn, and if successful, set aside the entire list. Challenges to the polls are directed against individual jurors. Such challenges are either peremptory or for cause. Each party is allowed a certain limited number of peremptory challenges which can be used without assigning any reason. Challenges for cause may be either on account of some general disqualification, or for some disqualification in respect to the particular case. The main grounds for general disqualification 33 are, Lack of the statutory qualifications. Alienage. Ignorance of the English language. Party to another suit at same term. Prior service as a juror within a stated period. The most common grounds for challenge on account of disqualification affecting the particular case are: Member of the grand jury. Consanguinity and affinity. Members of private corporations and societies. Membership in associations for the suppression Business relations. Prior service in the same or a similar case. Bias, prejudice, opinion. Conscientious scruples against capital punishment. Conscientious scruples against capital punishment on circumstantial evidence. Opinions touching the merits of the particular case. The allowance of a challenge for cause rests with the trial judge. 33 Such grounds will vary in the different states. SECTION 56. THE INTRODUCTION OF THE EVIDENCE. The law governing this portion of a trial is treated as a separate subject.34 Various questions of law, such as those as to the admissibility of evidence, are constantly arising during the trial, which it is necessary for the trial judge to pass upon. If either party objects to such decisions and desires to have them reviewed by an appellate court, it is necessary for him (in the absence of statutes or court rules changing this rule) to save his rights by taking exceptions to the ruling of the judge at the time they are rendered. The use to which such exceptions are put will be considered in the following chapter. SECTION 58. THE VERDICT. The verdict is the decision of the jury upon the issue submitted to them. "The verdict must be responsive to the issue submitted for trial. It is usually in general terms 'for the plaintiff,' or 'for the defendant.' When for the plaintiff it contains a finding of the amount of damages to which they think him entitled, when damages are claimed in the action. When separate and distinct issues are submitted for trial, there should be a finding on each one of them. The jurors must all agree to the verdict; and after it was rendered it was entered on the back of the nisi prius record and was called the postea from the name in Latin with which the recital began.' 11 35 "See subject of Evidence, Vol. XI, Sub. 37. 35 Martin on Civil Procedure, Sec. 363; Steph., Pl., 91. |