Hinton v. Hinton

• Decision Date: 05 December 1928
• Docket Number: 283.
• Citation: Hinton v. Hinton, 196 N.C. 341, 145 S.E. 615 (N.C. 1928)
• Parties: HINTON v. HINTON.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

145 S.E. 615

196 N.C. 341

HINTON v. HINTON.

No. 283.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 5, 1928

Appeal from Superior Court, New Hanover County; N. A. Sinclair Judge.

Action by Charlotte T. Hinton against Oran S. Hinton.From a judgment setting aside a verdict for plaintiff and ordering new trial, plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

Setting aside of verdict at subsequent term after timely motion to set aside was continued by consent held not objectionable.

The plaintiff instituted an action against the defendant, her husband, for support under C. S. § 1667.The issue was answered by the jury in favor of the plaintiff.There was a motion to set aside the verdict and the following judgment was rendered:

"This cause having been called for trial and being heard at the March Term, 1928, and the jury having rendered its verdict and upon the rendition of said verdict the defendant moved the Court to set aside the same, which motion has been, by consent, continued to this date for determination.

"And the respective parties having filed affidavits.And upon the hearing of the motion the Court finds as a fact that one of the jurors, William Ehlers, was by counsel for the defendant, examined as to his competency to sit as a juror and was asked if he was a citizen of the United States?To which the said juror replied 'Yes.'When in truth and fact he was an alien and not a citizen of the United States.And had said juror stated that he was not a citizen of the United States, counsel for the defendant would have rejected him as being disqualified.The Court further finds as a fact that the defendant had not exhausted his last peremptory challenge at the time defendant passed said juror.

The Court further finds as a fact that counsel for the defendant were misled by the juror's answer as aforesaid.

Upon the foregoing facts the Court being of the opinion that the defendant is entitled to have the verdict set aside and a new trial ordered:

It is now, therefore, ordered by the Court, that the verdict be, and the same is hereby set aside, and a new trial ordered as a matter of law.

It is further ordered that the order of the Honorable W. A. .Devin heretofore entered in this cause be continued in force until the case is retired or until the further order of the Court."

From the foregoing judgment the plaintiff appealed.

Rodgers & Rodgers, of Wilmington, for appellant.

E. K. Bryan and L. Clayton Grant, both of Wilmington, for appellee.

BROGDEN J.

Is an alien qualified to act as a juror?The statutory qualifications for jurors are contained in C. S. § 2312.Alienage is not a statutory disqualification for jury service in this state, but the common law prevails in this jurisdiction except to the extent it is repealed or modified by statute, C. S. § 970.Under the common law an alien was not qualified to serve as a juror.1 R. C. L. 802;Reich v. State,53 Ga. 73, 21 Am. Rep. 265;People v. Barker,60 Mich. 277, 27 N.W. 539, 1 Am. St. Rep. 501.As far back as 1824this court decided in Ex parte Thompson, 10 N.C. 355, that an alien was not qualified to serve as an attorney at law for the reason that an attorney is an integral part of the administration of justice in our courts.By analogy a juror is equally an integral part of the due administration of the law.The common-law theory of a jury was based largely upon the idea of vicinage.Thus, in State v. Cutshall,110 N.C. 538, 15 S.E. 261, 16 L. R. A. 130, the court said:

"The jury must also be summoned from the vicinage where the crime is supposed to have been committed; and the accused will thus have the benefit on his trial of his own good character and standing with his neighbors, if these he has preserved, and also of

...