Hinckley v. Perrin
| Decision Date | 27 October 1925 |
| Parties | HINCKLEY v. PERRIN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Dukes County; H. A. Dubuque, Judge.
Action of contract by Herbert H. Hinckley against Arthur Perrin. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
G. M. Poland, of Boston, for plaintiff.
G. P. Davis, of Boston, and B. A. Trustman, of Roxbury, for defendant.
[1] The plaintiff in this action of contract was the county treasurer of Dukes county. Before the jury was impaneled the defendant ‘presented a motion in the nature of a challenge to the array of the jury setting forth that the plaintiff was the treasurer of the county of Dukes county and was paymaster of the jurors in the county and that because of the plaintiff's official position and his duties as paymaster of the jurors, the jurors were unable to reach an impartial verdict.’ The court stated that the defendant might introduce evidence showing disqualification of any particular juror. No such evidence was offered.
[2][3] There was no error in overruling this motion. Prejudice of jurors is a fact which must be shown. It cannot be inferred except from sufficient evidence. Exery litigant in our courts is entitled to an impartial trial before an unprejudiced tribunal. Commonwealth v. Brown, 150 Mass. 334, 342,23 N. E. 98;Crocker v. Justices of Superior Court, 208 Mass. 162, 178, 179, 180, 94 N. E. 369. It cannot be presumed from the single fact that the plaintiff in his official capacity out of public money would pay the jurors the amount due them according to law, that therefore the jurors would not be impartial in the trial of a cause to which he was a party. Without discussing the law as to a challenge of the array, it is enough to say that it did not lie in the case at bar.
[4] The court made a full statement to the jurors of the requirement that each of them should be impartial and asked any one of them sensible of bias to make it known, otherwise he should assume that they were ready to give a fair and impartial verdict. No one of the jurors expressed consciousness of bias. This proceeding was unnecessary. The result would be the same, if it had not occurred.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Sherman
... ... See Commonwealth v ... Walsh, 124 Mass. 32, 35; Commonwealth v. Best, ... 180 Mass. 492, 493, 62 N.E. 748; Hinckley v. Perrin, ... 253 Mass. 527, 149 N.E. 320; Commonwealth v. Cero, ... 264 Mass. 264, 267, 268, 162 N.E. 349; Commonwealth v ... Welosky, 276 ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Sheppard
...Court, 208 Mass. 162, 180, 94 N.E. 369, 377,21 Ann.Cas. 1061;Commonwealth v. Leventhal, 236 Mass. 516, 524, 128 N.E. 864;Hinckley v. Perrin, 253 Mass. 527, 149 N.E. 320; Commonwealth v. Millen, 289 Mass. 441, 194 N.E. 463. There is nothing in the record to show an abuse of discretion in pro......
-
Com. v. Rodriquez
...guilty were properly overruled.2 The general jury pool was called upon after the special venire was exhausted.3 See also Hinckley v. Perrin, 253 Mass. 527, 149 N.E. 320; Commonwealth v. Cero, 264 Mass. 264, 267--268, 162 N.E. 349; Commonwealth v. Welosky, 276 Mass. 398, 400, 177 N.E. 656.4 ......