Estes v. Richardson
EDWARD ESTES v. JAMES H. RICHARDSON
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
By tbe Court, WHITMAN, J.:
The only error urged by appellant is the action of the Court upon a matter occurring on the formation of the jury, thus : One Dache, on examination as to his qualification to act as a juror, said that he had “ heard something of the matter,” that it would require testimony to remove the existing impression on his mind, that he “ had no bias or prejudice in the matter,” that the impressions upon his mind were very vague, and that he had never had any conversation “ with either plaintiff or defendant in regard to the suit, nor with any one who pretended to know the facts.” “ Whereupon counsel for defendants objected to said juror for cause, which said objection was overruled by the Court,” and thereto there was an exception taken.
The ruling of the Court was right upon the facts : right again, for that no notice should be taken of an objection so general. The statute points out several grounds of challenge for cause, tand the party desiring to have such challenge tried should specify the gtound or grounds upon which he bases it. (Page v. O'Neal, 12 Cal. 483 .)
The judgment of _ the District Court is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.