Butler v. Hands
| Decision Date | 04 May 1908 |
| Citation | 43 Colo. 541,95 P. 920 |
| Parties | BUTLER v. HANDS et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Appeal from La Plata County Court; Chas. A. Pike, Judge.
Action by William Hands and another against H. S. Butler. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
O. S. Galbreath, for appellant.
Melville & Clements, for appellees.
There is but one question raised by the brief of counsel for the appellant, and that relates to the alleged error of the court in refusing to permit the exercise of a peremptory challenge. The regular panel of jurors not being in attendance upon the county court, one of the parties advanced the fees and demanded a jury of 6, as provided by section 1093, Mills' Ann. St. After the jurors were passed for cause and the plaintiff had waived peremptory challenges the defendant challenged one of the jurors, and the court overruled the challenge. The section under which the jury was summoned makes no provision for challenges, and it is contended that there being no provision made for such, the right to challenge does not exist when a jury is summoned under this section. A peremptory challenge is not granted by the common law, and the right exists, if at all, by virtue of a statute. The section of the statute has been upheld by the court of appeals in Pitkin County v. First National Bank, 6 Colo.App. 423, 40 P. 894 and it is there held that the section applies when for any reason jurors of the regular panel are not in attendance. The section provides the manner in which a jury in the county court shall be summoned, but does not prescribe the mode of impaneling such jury; and we must determine whether the Code of Civil Procedure, which does provide for impaneling jurors in all courts of record, does or does not apply to the special jury summoned under the section mentioned. Counsel for the appellee contends that chapter 13, Mills' Ann Code, was intended to apply to the regular panel, and not to a special jury summoned under section 1093 mentioned. That some of the sections of the chapter do not apply is evident. That portion of section 179 which provides that the jurors shall be drawn by chance from the whole number of jurors in attendance of course cannot apply to a special jury. The purpose of the section is to secure to each party an impartial jury, and to prevent the officer whose duty it is to call the names from making a selection, but where a special jury is summoned the officer calls the names of all the jurors summoned. This section was not designed as a limitation upon the right of challenge, and it does not repeal the former law which granted peremptory challenges. But section 181 of the Code we think does control the procedure, and by that section it is provided that each party shall be entitled to four peremptory challenges. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blades v. DaFoe, 83SC306
...13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965); Denver City Tramway Co. v. Carson, 21 Colo.App. 604, 123 P. 680 (1912) (challenges for cause); Butler v. Hands, 43 Colo. 541, 95 P. 920 (1908) (peremptory Similarly, there is no constitutional right to peremptory challenges. Moreover, a peremptory challenge did not ex......
-
Laura A. Newman, LLC v. Roberts
...compared to the defendants' six." Id. at 326.¶ 15 Although we did not cite Kennedy, we cited another case of that era, Butler v. Hands, 43 Colo. 541, 95 P. 920, 921 (1908), as well as Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 220, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), to emphasize that "the right to e......
- Schon-Klingstein Meat & Grocery Co. v. Snow
-
Koustas Realty, Inc. v. Regency Square Partnership, 83CA0813
...and when properly invoked, it represents an effective means of securing a more impartial and better qualified jury. Butler v. Hands, 43 Colo. 541, 95 P. 920 (1908). But, if one side is accorded a disproportionate number of peremptory challenges it will enjoy a tactical advantage because it ......