Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Hollingsworth v. Duane 4 U.S. 307

← Cases

Hollingsworth v. Duane

4 U.S. 307 4 Dall. 307 Court SCOTUS English

Delivered by The Court,

Contents

Majority

p. 307
Hollingsworth v. Duane.[1]

Syllabus

New trial.
A verdict will not be set aside, on account of the alienage of a juror. Semble, that it is a cause of challenge, before he is sworn.
In this case (which was an action for a libel), the defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground, that he, as well as the plaintiff, was a citizen of Pennsylvania. Issue being joined on that fact, it was found by the jury, that the defendant was not a citizen; and thereupon, in consequence of a previous agreement, a venire issued to ascertain the quantum of damages, which the verdict settled at $600. After *the verdiet was given, it appeared, that one of the jurors was an alien ; and *-
p. 308
Dallas obtained a rule to show cause, why the verdict should not be set aside for that reason.
On the argument in support of the rule, it was contended : 1st. That the trial by jury, entire, was anxiously adopted by the United States, as well as by this state ; including the right and causes of challenge as at common law, in civil and in criminal cases. 1 Dall. Laws, App. 55, § 9, 11; Ibid. 58, § 25; 3 Ibid. 36, § 9, 6; 4 vol. Acts Cong. p. 25, art. 8, 9; 1 Dall. Laws, 134, § 4; 2 Ibid. 802, § 2; 3 Ibid. 606, § 16; 2 Ibid. 264, § 9, 12, 3; 1 vol. Acts Cong. 113, § 30; Ibid. 68, § 29. 2d. That on principle, as well as on authority, alienage was a cause of challenge to a juror, before verdict. 3 Dall. Laws, Const. art. VIII.; 1 Acts Cong. Const. art. VI.; Ibid. 67, § 29; 1 Roll. Abr. 657; Co. Litt. 156 b; 3 Bl. Com. 362; Gilb. P. C. 94.; 1 Dall. 74 . 3d. That if the cause of challenge was unknown, when the jury was qualified, it may be used to set aside the verdict, as for a mistrial. 3 Dall. 515 ; 11 Mod. 119; 2 Wood. 352; An. Reg. 1790, p. 46; 2 Ld. Raym. 1410; 1 Str. 640; 1 Acts Cong. 6, § 17; 2 Str. 1000, 593.
E. Tilghman and Ingersoll,
in ■ opposition to the rule, contended, 1st, That, in Pennsylvania, alienage was not a cause of challenge to a juror. But 2d. That the objection was too late, after the juror was sworn, and the verdict was given.

after a long advisement upon the subject, seemed to think, that alienage might have been a cause of challenge, before the juror was sworn ; but upon an extensive review of the authorities, they decided, that advantage could not be taken of it, after verdict.

Rule discharged.[1]

(a) (a) Since the discussion of this case, the marshal has been directed not to return aliens upon the panel; and, in many instances, when aliens have been returned, the state, as well as the federal, courts have discharged them, upon their own application.

Cases cited