Den v. Tatem

Den v. Tatem, 1 N.J.L. 190 (1793)

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided: May 15, 1793
Citations: 1 N.J.L. 190

Cited by 0

Headnotes

1. It is no objection to a judge before whom a jmi'y is to be struck, that he has been of counsel with one of the parties. 2. When a notice has been given by the counsel on each side, of the striking of a jury, at different times and before different judges, which notice is to be preferred ? Semble, that the plaintiff is entitled to the preference. Note. — A judge who has been counsel or attorney, cannot now strike a jury, or sit on the trial or argument, Pal. Laws 254, Anno 1797.

Summary

On striking a jury in the vacation before the Chief Justice, it appeared that Leake, for defendant, had given notice to strike a jury before Mr. Justice Smith, at Trenton, on the 20th February. Mr. Stockton, for plaintiff, gave notice to strike before the Chief Justice, at Burlington, on the 18th of the same month.

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.

The Chief Justice was desirous that the jury should be struck in term, before all the justices, which would obviate the objection to himself personally, and put an end to the dilemma arising from the conflicting notices.

Leake refused this, and the Chief Justice overruled the second objection, saying that it was not a legal one, and that it bad been so determined by the co”rt repeatedly. It was then agreed to defer this business until May Term, and now—

The facts above mentioned being stated to the court, they recommended to Chief Justice to strike the jury, which he did.

Note. — As to a judge having been counsel, see 2 Mod. 151; 3 Bl. Com. 361; Co. Litt. 294; 4 Burr. 2303, 2411; in which last case it appears Judge Blackstone, though he had been of counsel with plaintiff, gave his opinion.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list