Maretzek v. Cauldwell

The Superior Court of New York City

Maretzek v. Cauldwell

2 Abb. Pr. 407, 5 Rob. 660

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedApril 15, 1867

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Abb. Pr. 407 (Maretzek v. Cauldwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maretzek v. Cauldwell, 2 Abb. Pr. 407, 5 Rob. 660 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Robertson, Ch. J.

If the case on which this motion was heard be correct, there was a fatal error committed on the former trial. A juror (Meyer) after a challenge to him by the counsel for the defendants had been withdrawn, was challenged by the plaintiff’s counsel for principal cause, which challenge was tried by the court. The juror having stated that “ he was [409]*409opposed to theatrical representations,” the plaintiff’s counsel claimed that he was incompetent, and requested the court to. exclude said juror, to which counsel for the defendants objected. The court excluded said juror, and another was impanneled in his stead, to which decision and course the counsel for the defendant excepted.

Such an opinion entertained by the juror did not show either such relations to the parties, or such bias and incompetency, oh. account of fixed opinion, as amounted, in law, to a conclusion upon the matters in issue in this case, and was therefore only a ground of challenge to the favor.

There must, therefore, be a new trial on the case, with costs to abide the event.

Ordered accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Robertson, Ch. J.

If the case on which this motion was heard be correct, there was a fatal error committed on the former trial. A juror (Meyer) after a challenge to him by the counsel for the defendants had been withdrawn, was challenged by the plaintiff’s counsel for principal cause, which challenge was tried by the court. The juror having stated that “ he was [409]*409opposed to theatrical representations,” the plaintiff’s counsel claimed that he was incompetent, and requested the court to. exclude said juror, to which counsel for the defendants objected. The court excluded said juror, and another was impanneled in his stead, to which decision and course the counsel for the defendant excepted.

Such an opinion entertained by the juror did not show either such relations to the parties, or such bias and incompetency, oh. account of fixed opinion, as amounted, in law, to a conclusion upon the matters in issue in this case, and was therefore only a ground of challenge to the favor.

There must, therefore, be a new trial on the case, with costs to abide the event.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Abb. Pr. 407, 5 Rob. 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maretzek-v-cauldwell-nysuperctnyc-1867.