Hawkins v. Andrews
| Decision Date | 30 June 1869 |
| Parties | BARNEY HAWKINS, plaintiff in error. v. THURSTON ANDREWS, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
New trial because jurors incompetent. By Judge Worrill. Muscogee Superior Court. November Term, 1868.
Hawkins brought trespass vi et armis, against Andrews for un-lawfully beating him, etc., and obtained a judgment against him.
Andrews counsel moved for a new trial, and the Judge granted it upon the ground that two of the jurors who tried said cause were of the grand jury who had found a true bill against said Andrews on account of said trespass, Andrews being ignorant of that fact until after the trial. This is assigned as error.
Ramsey & Ramsey, Pat. Brannon, for plaintiff in error, cited secs. 3858-3860, 3847.
Ingram & Crawford, (by the Reporter,) for defendant.
The Court below granted a new trial in this case, on the ground that two of the jurors who tried it had been members of the grand jury who had found a true bill against the defendant for the same trespass on the criminal side of the Court, which is now assigned for error here. By the common law, jurors must be omni exceptione majores, and it was a principal cause of challenge that one had formerly been a juror in the same cause: 3rd Bl. Com., 363. This principle of the common law was recognized and affirmed by this Court, in the case of The Mayor, etc., of Columbus, v. Goetchins, 7 Ga. R., 139. The defendant was ignorant of the fact that the two jurors were disqualified, until after the trial. In our judgment, there was no error in the Court below in granting a new trial in this case, and this Court will not interfere with the exercise of its discretion in doing so.
Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Chicago v. Harmon
...If a party accepts a juror in ignorance of his disqualifications, a new trial will be granted: Burroughs v. State, 33 Ga. 408; Hawkins v. Andrews, 39 Ga. 118; State v. Groom, 10 Ia. 316; Pa. R. R. Co. v. Howard, 20 Mich. 18; Queen v. Justice of Hartsfordshire, 6 Q. B. 735; Queen v. Justice ......
-
Bitting v. State
...that a grand juror who had acted in finding a bill is not competent to sit as a traverse juror on the trial of such an indictment; and in 39 Ga. 118 [Hawkins v. Andrews], it was held that a juror who had found a bill for trespass, was incompetent to sit as a traverse juror on the trial of t......
-
Scott v. Mcdonald
...an incompetent juror to try the case when it was again called for trial in the same court. Mayor, etc., v. Goetchius, 7 Ga. 139; Hawkins v. Andrews, 39 Ga. 118. 2. We think the court was right in holding, generally, that a plea of total failure of consideration could be filed in a case like......
-
Scott v. McDonald
... ... called for trial in the same court. Mayor, etc., v ... Goetchius, 7 Ga. 139; Hawkins v. Andrews, 39 ... 2. We ... think the court was right in holding, generally, that a plea ... of total failure of consideration ... ...