Blake v. Millspaugh
1 Johns. 316
Opinion
We think the challenge was well taken. That a juror had previously given an opinion on the very question, in controversy, was a valid exception to his being sworn to try the cause; the defendant’s proceeding to trial on the merits, afterwards, is no waiver of the exception, nor does it preclude him from alleging the misdirection of the judge, as error.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Blake v. Millspaugh, 1 Johns. 316 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).
1 Johns. 316 (Blake v. Millspaugh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Coughlin v. People
19 L.R.A. 57 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1893)
State v. Sawtelle
32 A. 831 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1891)
Halsted v. Manhattan Railway Co.
11 N.Y.S. 44 (Superior Court of New York, 1890)
Halsted v. Manhattan Railway Co.
26 Jones & S. 270 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1890)
Young v. Johnson
53 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 164 (New York Supreme Court, 1887)
Brown v. State
57 Miss. 424 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1879)
Trimble v. State
2 Greene 404 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1850)
State v. Howard
17 N.H. 171 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1845)
Maize v. Sewell
4 Blackf. 447 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1837)
People v. Vermilyea
7 Cow. 108 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)
Ex parte Vermilyea
6 Cow. 555 (New York Supreme Court, 1826)
Laverty v. Gray
1 Mart. 617 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1815)