CHALLENGING JURYMEN.

Southland Times, Issue 1282, 22 July 1870, Page 3

CHALLENGING JURYMEN.

Judging from the reports in the NewYork papers of the M'Farland trial, the preliminary process Of challenging the jury in a criminal trial is regarded there as a very much more important matter than with us. At any rate, far more time and trouble and attention were devoted to it. In this case no fewer than 750 jurors were summoned, and before the twelve to form the jury could be selected, each man was subjected to a rigorous examination and cross-examination, to ascertain whether he was biassed with reference to the case. The questions put were of what we should consider rather abundant latitude, some of them being where the juror went to church ; if he belonged, to Mr Fotheringham's or Mr Beecher's congregation ; whether any of his friends or relations attended the churches of those preachers; what were his views on capital punishment ; would he in any ease return a verdict that might be followed by an execution; what pewspapers he read, and what were his opinions or feelings on the case before him. One witness, who said he was a married man, was asked .if he had any children, and how many ? -He had four. On this counsel for the defence^ guessed "that was all right," and withdrew their challenge. If any of the jurors failed in their answers to satisfy the counsel on either side of the case, ne was " challenged for the favour;** if counsel could not make out a case of this sort, they still "in some cases challenged peremptorily. The New York Times speaking of the growth and abuse of the system of challenge, Ba yg. — "if things go on at this rate, a small town will not be in a condition to afford the luxury of a jury much longer. Even New York might not be able to stand the embarrassment to business which half-a-dozen important trials going on at the same time would be calculated to produce. This abuse of the privilege of challenging jurors is short-sighted in every way. It does not find out the best men for the duty. It is ordinarily deemed sufficient for the judge to admonish the jury to dismiss from their minds all that they heard previous to the evidence, and juries are, as » ruU*, intelligent enough to see for themselves the necessity of doing this. The oath surely ought to be strong enough to overcome mere " impressions," but not much importance seems to be attached in legal circles to oaths now-a-