For cause. Those for which some reason is assigned. • These may be of various kinds, unlimited in number, may be to the array or to the poll, and depend andtheir allowance upon the existence and character of the reason assigned.
To the favor. Those challenges to the poll for cause which are founded upon reasonable grounds to suspect that the juror will act under some undue influence or prejudice, though the cause be not so evident as to au thorize a principal challenge ; Co. Litt. 147 a, 157 a; Bacon, Abr. Juries, E, 5; Shoef fier v. State, 3 Wis. 823. Such challenges are at common law decided by triors, and not by the court. See TRIOBS; Cancemi v. People, 16 N. Y. 501; Mann v. Glover, 14 N. J. L 195. But see Milan v. State, 24 Ark. 346; Costigan v. Cuyler, 21 N. Y. 134; Weston v. People, 6 Hun (N. Y.) 140.
Peremptory. Those made without assign ing any reason, and which the court must allow. The number of these in trials for felonies was, at common law, thirty-five; 4 Bla. Corn. 354 ; but, by statute, has been reduced to twenty in most states, and is al lowed in criminal cases only when the of fence is capital ; Thorn. Juries 119; U. S. v. Cottingham, 2 Blatchf. 470, Fed. Cas. No. 14,872; Hayden v. Com., 10 B. Monr. (Ky.) 125 ; Fouts v. State, 8 Ohlo St. 98; see Schumaker v. State, 5 Wis. 324; State v. Cadwell, 46 N. C. 289 ; Todd v. State, 85 Ala. 339, 5 South. 278. The prosecuting officer may exercise his right of peremptory chal lenge of a juror at any time previous to the acceptance of the jury by the defendant; State v. Haines, 36 S. C. 504, 15 S. E. 555; in civil cases the right is not allowed at all; 9 Exch. 472 ; 2 F. & F. 137 ; U. S. v. Cotting ham, 2 Blatchf. 470, Fed. Cas. No. 14,872; or, if allowed, only to a very limited extent; How v. Canal Co., 5 Harr. (Del.) 245; Cleve land, P. & A. R. Co. v. Stanley, 7 Ohio St 155 ; Waterford & W. Turnpike v. People, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 161; Quinebaug Bank v. Tar box, 20 Conn. 510 ; Wyatt v. Noble, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 507 ; Lewis v. Detrich, 3 Ia. 216. Un less given by statute no right exists; Brown v. R. Co., 86 Ala. 206, 5 South. 195. The rule that a juror shall be accepted or challenged and sworn as soon as his examination is com pleted is not objectionable as embarrassing the exercise of the right of peremptory chal lenge ; St. Clair v. U. S., 154 U. S.134,14 Sup.
Ct. 1002, 38 L. Ed. 936. In the federal courts in trials for treason or capital cases, the ac cused has twenty and the United States five peremptory challenges; U. S. R. S. § 819. The act granting peremptory challenges to the government in criminal cases has not taken away the right to conditional or qualified challenges when permitted in a state, or where it has been adopted by a federal court as a rule or by special order. The exercise of the right is under the supervision of the court, which should not permit it to be used unreasonably or so as to prejudice the de fendant. It is not an unreasonable exercise of the privilege where, notwithstanding its exercise, neither the government nor the de fendant had exhausted all their peremptory challenges ; Sawyer v. U. S., 202 U. S. 150, 26 Sup. Ct. 575, 50 L. Ed. 972.
The allowance of peremptory challenges in excess of the statutory provision is not ground for reversal, where no prejudice to the opposite party appears; Stevens v. R. Co., 26 R. I. 90, 58 Atl. 492, 66 L. R. A. 465. The number of peremptory challenges allow ed varies much in the different states. See 12 A. & E. Encyc. 346, 347, n. 3, for state statutes on the subject.
To the poll. Those made separately to each juror to whom they apply. Distinguish ed from those to the array.
Principal. Those made for a cause which when substantiated is of itself sufficient ev idence of bias in favor of or against the party challenging. Co. Litt. 156 b. See 3 Bla. Com. 363; 4 id. 353. They may be ei ther to the array or to the poll; Co. Litt. 156 a, b.
The Importance 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 qualifications of a juror upon suggestion of the cause for challenge, and examination of the juror upon oath when nec essary. See TRIMS.