Welch v. Tribune Pub. Co.
Citation | 83 Mich. 661,47 N.W. 562 |
Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Decision Date | 24 December 1890 |
Parties | WELCH v. TRIBUNE PUB. CO. |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; HENRY N. BREVOORT, Judge.
E T. Wood, (W. H. H. Russell, of counsel,) for appellant.
John Atkinson, for appellee.
The plaintiff brought an action of trespass on the case against defendant for libel. In June, 1889, the plaintiff was summoned to appear in the recorder's court of the city of Detroit, as a talesman from which to select a jury for the trial of Nelson Brule, then about to be tried upon an information charging him with assaulting, with intent to kill and murder, Ida Corneau. He was examined as to his qualifications, and admitted and sworn as a juror in the case. After hearing the testimony, the argument of counsel, and the charges of the court, the jury retired to consider the case, and, after being absent a short time, they returned into court, and reported that they found that Brule was not guilty. The next day the Detroit Tribune, published by the defendant contained an editorial, reciting the circumstances of the alleged attempted killing, and animadverting severely upon the jury for having returned such a verdict, which it characterized as outrageous. The libelous words charged in the declaration read as follows: The article then went on to state as follows: A few days after, another article appeared in the paper under the heading, "This is Encouraging," and commenting on and commending a coroner's jury, who found that the deceased "came to his death through an assault made upon his person by John Cook," added: Later another article appeared which purported to report the proceedings of a religious meeting at the Casino Tabernacle, in which a speaker said: These articles were all counted upon as libelous in plaintiff's declaration. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice that it would insist upon the truth of the articles published as a defense to the action. The trial resulted in a verdict for defendant.
The first assignment of error relates to the action of the court in excusing the juror Joseph G. Campau, who was called and examined by counsel of both parties, who announced themselves as satisfied with him as a juror. The court, without a challenge being interposed, and without stating any cause or reason therefor, excused the juror, against the protest of the plaintiff. We do not think the judge has a right to reject a qualified juror with whom the parties are satisfied, unless for sufficient cause; and such cause should appear upon the record. Pearse v. Rogers, 2 Fost. & F. 137. The circuit judge is not invested with any right of peremptory challenge. He can excuse for cause, but the cause must be stated, so that it may appear of record. Proff. Jury. � 140. The exercise of the power to discharge a juror by the circuit judge of his own volition is not a matter of discretion. It must be based upon some cause. It will not do to hold that a circuit judge may, without assigning any reason, discharge jurors at his mere will or caprice. If he may so discharge one juror he may discharge a dozen, and compel parties, after they have exhausted their peremptory challenges, to accept such a jury as he is satisfied with. Counsel for defendant contends that the record does not show that plaintiff was prejudiced, and that the presumption is in favor of judicial action. The record does disclose that the juror was one of the regular panel, and it further discloses that talesmen were resorted to in order to fill the panel which tried the cause. The law has provided measures for the selection and return of jurors to serve in the trial of causes, and a party has a right, if there be no legal objection to the jurors so returned, to have his cause tried by jurors so selected, unless rejected in the manner provided by law.
Upon the trial of the cause, the plaintiff took the witness stand and testified in his own behalf. He stated that he heard all the evidence in the case, the arguments of counsel, and the instructions of the court, after which the jury retired to the jury-room to consider the evidence, and agree upon a verdict; that they were out something over an hour, and returned into court with a verdict of "not guilty." He was then asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial