Wheat v. Fraker

130 S.E.2d 251, 107 Ga. App. 318, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 825

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: February 7, 1963
• Docket: 39977
• Status: Published

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge:

“Foul, foul play,” the defendant cried;

“That I by kinsman be not trammelled,

Let the issue again be tried

Before another jury impanelled.

Remember how from John at Runnymede

The Charta was forced and wrested

That no matter what the issue or the deed

By my peers it must be tried and tested. With juror mine adversary durst

Try the cause, whose wife is second cousin to my wife And to plaintiff’s wife a first.

A new trial, sire, I demand to settle strife.”

“No foul play do I find or see,”

The judge replied. “Foreman’s wife to thine And to plaintiff’s wife may kinsman be,

But to Doug and thee no kinship do I find. 1

Thus, it doth not appear

For any cause or reason told

That the juror was not thy peer

The case to try and verdict mold.

Moreover, when kinships we sought to learn

It doth not appear that as best befits

One who would a kinsman spurn

Thou revealedst that ‘cousin’ did on the panel sit. 2

Thy day in court thou hast had,”

The judge asserted, “and law commands That, no error made., whether good or bad,

The issued tried and settled stands.”

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Bussell, J., concur.

1 “The groom and bride each comes within

The circle of the other’s kin;

But kiii and kin are still no more

Related than they were before.”

Central R. & Bkg. Co. v. Roberts, 91 Ga. 513, 517 (18 SE 315); Garrett v. State, 203 Ga. 756, 768 (5) (48 SE2d 377); and see Everett v. Culberson, 215 Ga. 577 (8) (111 SE2d 367); Smith v. State, 2 Ga. App. 574 (59 SE 311).

2 See Jennings v. Autry, 94 Ga. App. 344 (5) (94 SE2d 629); Joyner v. State, 208 Ga. 435 (2) (67 SE2d 221).