The causes for challenge are said to be either propter honoris respectum (from re gard to rank), which do not exist in the Unit ed States ; propter defectum (on account of some defect), from personal objections, as alienage, infancy, lack of statutory require ments ; propter affectum (on account of par tiality), from some bias or partiality either actually shown to exist or presumed from circumstances ; propter delictum (on account of crime), including cases of legal incom petency on the ground of infamy; Co. Litt. 155 b et seq.
These causes include, amongst others, alienage; Hollingsworth v. Duane, Wall. C. C. 147, Fed. Cas. No. 6,618 ; but see Queen v. Hepburn, 2 Cra. 3, Fed. Cas. No. 11,503 ; in capacity resulting from age, lack of statuto ry qualifications ; Montague v. Com., 10 Gratt. (Va.) 767 ; see State v. Garig, 43 La. Ann. 365 ; partiality arising from near rela tionship; March v. R. Co., 19 N. H. 372 ; Bals baugh v. Frazer, 19 Pa. 95; Jaques v. Com., 10 Gratt. (Va.) 690; State v. Perry, 44 N. C. 330; Hardy v. Sprowle, 32 Me. 310; Quine baug Bank v. Leavens, 20 Conn. 87, 50 Am. Dec. 272; Paddock v. Wells, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 331; Trullinger v. Webb, 3 Ind. 198 ; Moody v. Griffin, 65 Ga. 304 ; see State v. Walton, 74 Mo. 270 ; Wirlbach's Ex'r v. Bank, 97 Pa. 543, 39 Am.. Rep. 821; an inter est in the result of the trial; Fleming v. State, 11 Ind. 234: Page v. R. Co., 21 N. H. 438; Peck v. Freeholders, 21 N. T. L. 656; Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Terrell, 69 Tex. 650, 7 S. W. 670; but it should be a direct pecuniary interest ; Phillips v. State, 29 Ga. 105 ; conscientious scruples as to finding a verdict of conviction in a capital case ; U. S. v. Wilson, 1 Baldw. 78, Fed. Cas. No. 16,730 ; White v. State, 16 Tex. 206 ; Hyde v. State, 16 Tex. 445, 67 Am. Dec. 630 ; People v. Tan ner, 2 Cal. 257 ; Williams v. State, 3 Ga. 453 ; Lewis v. State, 9 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 115 ; Martin v. State, 16 Ohio 364; People v. Ma jors, 65 Cal. 148, 3 Pac. 597, 52 Am. Rep. 295; Kennedy v. State, 19 Tex. App. 618 ; see Gates v. People, 14 Ill. 433 ; Cora. v. Web ster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 295, 52 Am. Dec. 711; membership of societies, under some circum stances ; 13 Q. B. 815 ; People v. Reyes, 5 Cal. 347 ; Cora. v. Livermore, 4 Gray (Mass.) 18 ; citizenship in a municipality interested in the case; Cramer v. Burlington, 42 Ia. 315; Fulweiler v. St. Louis, 61 Mo. 479; Gibson v. Wyandotte, 20 Kan. 156; Goshen v. Eng land, 119 Ind. 368, 21 N. E. 977, 5 L. R. A. 253 ; but see Kendall v. Albia, 73 Ia. 241, 34 N. W. 833 ; acting as an employe of one of the parties ; Louisville R. Co. v. Mask, 64
Miss. 738, 2 South. 360; Gunter v. Mfg. Co., 18 S. C. 263, 44 Am. Rep. 573 ; Central R. Co. v. Mitchell, 63 Ga. 173 ; bias indicated by declarations of wishes or opinions as to the result of the trial; State v. Spencer, 21 N. J. L. 196; Busick v. State, 19 Ohio 198 ; Blake v. Millspaugh, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 316 ; Davis v. Walker, 60 Ill. 452 ; Winnesheik Ins. Co. v. Schueller, id. 465 ; O'Mara v. Com., 75 Pa. 424 ; Scranton v. Stewart, 52 Ind. 68 ; or opinions formed or expressed as to the guilt or innocence of one accused of crime; Meyer v. State, 19 Ark. 156; Marsh v. State, 30 Miss. 627; Sutton v. Albatross, 2 Wall. Jr. 333, Fed. Cas. No. 13,645 ; Moses v. State, 10 Humphr. (Tenn.) 456 ; Neely v. People, 13 Ill. 685; Trimble v. State, 2 G. Greene (Ia.) 404 ; Busick v. State, 19 Ohio 198 ; Monroe v. State, 5 Ga. 85; see State v. Fox, 25 N. J. L. 566; Baker v. State, 15 Ga. 498 ; Rice v. State, 7 Incl. 332; Van Blaricum v. People, 16 Ill. 364, 63 Am. Dec. 316 ; People v. McCauley, 1 Cal. 379 ; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 295, 52 Am. Dec. 711; Smith v. Com., 7 Gratt. (Va.) 593 ; Baldwin v. State, 12 Mo. 223 ; State v. Potter, 18 Conn. 166; but if opin ion is based on newspaper report or rumor, and the juror says he can give an impartial decision on the evidence, he is competent ; People v. Cochran, 61 Cal. 548; Walker v. State, 102 Ind. 502, 1 N. E. 856; Thayer v. Min. Co., 105 Ill. 547; State' v. Dugay, 35 La. Ann. 327; State v. Green, 95 N. C. 611; Ul rich v. People, 39 Mich. 245 ; Weston v. Cora., 111 Pa. 251, 2 At]. 191. A juror may be ask ed whether his "political affiliations or party predilections tend to bias his judgment ei ther for or against the defendant" ; Connors v. U. S., 158 II. S. 408, 15 Sup. Ct. 951, 39 L. Ed. 1033.
Who may challenge. Both parties, in civil as well as in criminal cases, may challenge, for cause ; and equal privileges are generally allowed both parties in respect to perempto ry challenges ; but see Tharp v. Feltz's Adm'r, 6 13. Monr. (Ky.) 15 ; Shoeffier v. State, 3 Wis. 823 ; Pfomer v. People, 4 Park. Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 586 ; and after a juror has been chal lenged by one party and found indifferent, he may yet be challenged by the other ; Wil liams v. State, 32 Miss. 389, 66 Am. Dec. 615. A juror has no right to challenge himself, and though a good cause of challenge sub sists, yet, if neither party will take advantage of it, the court cannot reject him ; Denn v. Pissant, 1 N. J. L. 220 ; but see Gilliam v. Brown, 43 Miss. 641.