The importanoe of the distinction between prin cipal challenges and those to the favor is found in the case of challenges to the array or of challenges to the poll for favor or partiality. All other chal lenges to the poll must, it seems, be principal. The distinctions between the various classes of chal lenges are of little value in modern practice, as the court generally determine the qualificatiuns of a juror upon suggestion of the cause for challenge, and examination of the juror upon oath when neces sary. See Tatoes.
6. The causes for challenge are said to be either propter honoris respectum (from regard to rank,), which do not exist in the United States ; propter defectum (on account of some defect), from personal objections, as alienage, infancy, lack of statutory requirements; prop ter cyfectum (on account of partiality), from some bias or partiality either actually shown to exist or presumed from circumstances ; propter delictum (on account of crime), in cluding cases of legal incompetency on the ground of infamy. Coke, Litt. 155 b et seq.
These causes include, amongst others, incapacity resulting from age, lack of statu tory qualifications, 10 Gratt. Va. 767; par tiality arising from near relationship, 19 N. H. 372; 19 Penn. St. 95 ; 10 Gratt. Va. 690; Busb. No. C. 330 ; 32 Me. 310; 20 Conn. 87 ; 2 Barb. Ch. N. Y 331 ; ace 38 Me. 44; 19 N. H. 351, an interest in the result of the trial, 11 Ind. 234 ; 8 Cush. Mass. 69 ; 21 N. H. 438; 1 Zabr. N. J. 656; 11 Mo. 247, conscientious scruples as to finding a verdict of conviction in a capital case, 1 Baldw. C. C. 78; 16 Tex. 206, 445 ; 7 Ind. 338; 2 Cal. 257 ; 3 Ga. 433; 17 Miss. 115 ; 16 Ohio, 364 ; 13 N. H. 536 ; see 13 Ark. 568 ; 14 Ill. 433 ; 5 Cush. Mass. 295, membership of societies, under some cir cumstances, 5 Cal. 347 ; 4 Gray, Mass. 18, or indicated by declarations of wishes or opinions as to the result of the trial, 1 Zabr. N. Jr. 196 ; 19 Ohio, 198; see 6 Ind. 169, or opinions formed or expressed as to the guilt or inno cence of one accused of crime. 19 Ark. 156;
30 Miss. 627 ; 2 Wall. Jr. C. C. 333 ; 10 Humplir. Tenn. 456 ; 13 III. 685 • 2 Greene, Iowa, 404 ; 19 Ohio, 198; 5 Ga. 85. See 1 Dutch. N. J. 566 ; 15 Ga. 498 ; 18 id. 383 ; 7 Ind. 332 ; 2 Swan, Teen. 581 ; 16 Ill. 364 ; 1 Cal. 379 ; 5 Cush. Mass. 2.)5 ; 7 Gratt. Va. 593 ; 12 M. 223 ; 18 Conn. 166.
7. Who may challenge. BDth parties, in civil as well as in criminal cases, may challenge, for cause; and equal privileges are generally allowed both parties in respect to peremptory challenges; but see 6 B. Munr. Ky. 15 ; 3 Wisc. 823 ; 2 Park. Cr. Cas. N. Y. 586; and after a juror has been challenged by one party and found indifferent, he may yet be chal lenged by the other. 32 Miss. 389.
The time to make a challenge is between the appearance and swearing of the jurors. 8 Gratt. Va. 637 ; 3 Jones, No. C. 443 ; 3 Iowa, 216. 23 Penn. St. 12; 8 Gill, Md. 487 ; 8 Blackf. Ind. 194 ; 3 Ga. 453. See 1 Curt. C. C. 23. It is a general rule at common law that no challenge can he made till the appear ance of a full jury. 4 Barnew. & Ald. 476 ; on which account a party who wishes to chal lenge the array mr,y pray a tales to complete the number, and then make his objection. Challenges to the array, where allowed, must precede those to the poll; and the right to the former is waived by makinn flap isafar Coke, Litt. 158 a; Bacon, Abr. Juries, E 11; 6 Cal. 214. In cases where peremptory challenges are allowed, a juror uro uccess fully challenged for cause may subsequently be challenged peremptorily. 4 Blackstone, Comm. 356 ; 6 Term, 531; 4 Barnew. & Ald. 476. See 5 Cush. Mass. 295.
S. Manner of making. Challenges to the array mud be made in writing, 1 Mann. Mich. 45] ; but challenges to the poll are made orally and generally by the attorney's or party's.saying, "Challenged," or, "I chal lenge," or, "We challenge." •1 Chitty, Crim. Law, 533-541 ; 4 Hargrave, St. Tr. 740; Trials per Pais, 172 ; Croke, Car. 105. See 43 Me. 11 ; 25 Penn. St. 134.