sufficient ground challenge in New York

1912At common law the formation and expression of an opinion by a juror touching the guilt or innocence of a person accused of crime was a legal disqualification. “ The statute ,of 1872 changes the preexisting rule by enacting, in substance, that an existing -opinion or inference as to the guilt or innocence of an accused person should not be a sufficient ground of challenge to a juror, if he could declare on oath his belief that such opinion or inference would not influence his verdict, and that he could render an impartial verdict according to the evidence, and the court should be satisfied that

1898On the trial of an indictment, exceptions may be taken by the defendant, to a decision of the court, upon a matter of law, by which his substantial rights are prejudiced, and not otherwise, in any of the following cases: * * * (2) In admitting or rejecting testimony on the trial of a challenge for actual bias to any juror who participated in the verdict, or in allowing or disallowing .such challenge.” Under these sections, it Fas been held that the decision of the trial court on the question of indifferency of a juror is not reviewable except in the absence of any evidence to support it; and s

1901It was held in this case upon a former appeal ( 38 App. Div. 130 , 56 N. Y.

1901It was held in this case upon a former appeal ( 38 App. Div. 130 , 56 N. Y.

1901That deed entirely ignored any rights of William Sheperd as tenant in common, and afforded to the New York Hospital a sufficient ground for the claim that it had become the owner of all of the premises, and, undoubtedly, if that corporation then went into possession, claiming everything that was conveyed to it by the deed, its possession was hostile to that of Thomas Sheperd’s co-tenant (Sweetland v. Buell, 164 N. Y. 541 , 58 N. E. 663 ); but yet that hostile possession was not necessarily the beginning of a title by adverse possession, as against the co-tenant.

1901That deed entirely ignored any rights of William Sheperd as tenant in common, and afforded to the New York Hospital a sufficient ground for the claim that it had become the owner of all of the premises, and, undoubtedly, if that corporation then went into possession, claiming everything that was conveyed to it by the deed, its possession was hostile to that of Thomas Sheperd’s co-tenant (Sweetland v. Buell, 164 N. Y. 541 , 58 N. E. 663 ); but yet that hostile possession was not necessarily the beginning of a title by adverse possession, as against the co-tenant.

1965(People v. Carpenter, 38 Hun 490 , affd. 102 N. Y. 238 ; People v. Mahoney, 73 Hun 601 .) No challenge on the voir dire was made to the court; the contention raised by the defense is that subsequent events led to the discovery of the alleged prejudicial conduct during the trial and the deliberations of the jury.

1965(People v. Carpenter, 38 Hun 490 , affd. 102 N. Y. 238 ; People v. Mahoney, 73 Hun 601 .) No challenge on the voir dire was made to the court; the contention raised by the defense is that subsequent events led to the discovery of the alleged prejudicial conduct during the trial and the deliberations of the jury.

1898On the trial of an indictment, exceptions may be taken by the defendant, to a decision of the court, upon a matter of law, by which his substantial rights are prejudiced, and not otherwise, in any of the following cases: * * * (2) In admitting or rejecting testimony on the trial of a challenge for actual bias to any juror who participated in the verdict, or in allowing or disallowing .such challenge.” Under these sections, it Fas been held that the decision of the trial court on the question of indifferency of a juror is not reviewable except in the absence of any evidence to support it; and s

1898On the trial of an indictment, exceptions may be taken by the defendant, to a decision of the court, upon a matter of law, by which his substantial rights are prejudiced, and not otherwise, in any of the following cases: * * * (2) In admitting or rejecting testimony on the trial of a challenge for actual bias to any juror who participated in the verdict, or in allowing or disallowing .such challenge.” Under these sections, it Fas been held that the decision of the trial court on the question of indifferency of a juror is not reviewable except in the absence of any evidence to support it; and s

1886The following cases, some of which were decided under the acts of 1872 and 1873, the substance of which, so far as this point is concerned, is incorporated in the section of the Code of Criminal Procedure- above quoted, are authorities for this position : Thomas v. People, 67 N.Y. 218 ; Phelps v. People, 72 Id. 334 ; Balbo v. People, 80 Id. 484; Cox v. People, Id. 500; People ex rel.

1886The following cases, some of which were decided under the acts of 1872 and 1873, the substance of which, so far as this point is concerned, is incorporated in the section of the Code of Criminal Procedure- above quoted, are authorities for this position : Thomas v. People, 67 N.Y. 218 ; Phelps v. People, 72 Id. 334 ; Balbo v. People, 80 Id. 484; Cox v. People, Id. 500; People ex rel.