Steele v. Maloney
| Decision Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Citation | 1 Minn. 347 |
| Parties | FRANKLIN STEELE vs. PATRICK MALONEY. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Hollinshead & Becker, and H. J. Horn, for plaintiff in error.
De Witt C. Cooley, for defendant in error.
This action was brought by the defendant in error, to recover the amount due upon a promissory note. The cause was tried before a jury of twelve men, and a verdict returned for the defendant in error. The errors alleged are in regard to the jury that tried the cause: First, to the array; and, second, to an individual juror. The objections were not made until after the jury had returned a verdict. The substance of the first objection is, that there were only twelve jurors returned at the opening of the court for the term, on the original venire, and that they had been discharged at the time this cause was tried.
The jurors who tried this cause were returned upon a special venire which was issued by order of the court. The following provisions of statute would seem to furnish sufficient authority for issuing a special venire: "It shall be lawful for the judge of the district court of either of the counties of this territory, when there shall happen to be a deficiency of jurors, for any cause whatever, to rule a special venire, through the term, or any days of the term, to the sheriff of the proper county, to summon a number of jurors sufficient to complete the number of the orignal panel." Rev. Stats. § 32, p. 289. It is contended, that inasmuch as none of the original panel remained, this section of the Rev. Stats. does not apply to this case; but I think the power exists, although, for obvious reasons, it should be exercised with great caution. Parties should, if possible, whenever they require it, be tried by a jury selected in the manner pointed out by the law for the selection of the original panel. But it often happens — and especially in a new country, inhabited by a mixed and constantly changing population — that the original panel falls far short of the requisite number. To remedy this deficiency, the legislature gave to courts the authority found in the section above quoted. It is, however, unnecessary to inquire how far the authority of the court extends in such cases, when objection is seasonably made, because, in the one before us, none was made until after the return of the verdict of the jury. This was too late. In the absence of fraud,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sylvester v. State
...ground of objection to the panel, the defendant should have availed himself of it before verdict. Rev. St. 1892, § 2937; Steele v. Malony, 1 Minn. 347 (Gil. 257); 12 Pl. & Pr. 424. This is the only attack upon the jury covered by the assignments of error, and the only one, therefore, which ......
-
Foley v. State
... ... (Thomp ... on Trials, Sec. 113; Dovey v. Hobson, 2 Marsh, 154; ... State v. Stevens, 11 S. Car., 319; Steele v ... Maloney, 1 Minn. 347.) ... Statutory ... provisions respecting the drawing of the panel are largely ... regarded as directory ... ...
-
Wrabek v. Suchomel
...objection to the manner of selecting them if he did not intend to waive his right to insist upon a compliance with the statute. Steele v. Maloney, 1 Minn. 347 (Gil. 257); State v. Greenman, 23 Minn. 209;Rollins v. Ames, 2 N. H. 349, 9 Am. Dec. 79;Beals v. Cone, 27 Colo. 473, 62 Pac. 948,83 ......
-
State v. Jones
...363, 380, 381. J. L. Smith, Att'y Gen'l, for Respondent, cited: Wagn. Stat. § 14, 1103; 1 Grah. & Wat. New Trials, 35, 36-40; Steele vs. Maloney, 1 Minn. 347; Thrall vs. Smiley, 9 Cal. 529; Forsythe vs. State, 6 Ohio, 9; 1 Mo. 527; 16 Mo, 385; 31 Mo. 361; State vs. Byrne, 24 Mo. 151; State ......