Several state courts have held that a re versal and entry of final judgment by the appellate court under state statute is not an infringement of. trial by jury ; Larkins v. R. Ass'n, 221 111. 428, 77 N. E. 678 ; Gunn v. R. Co., 26 R. I. 112, 58 Atl. 452 ; Houghton Im plement Co. v. Vavrosky, 15 N. D. 308, 109 N. W. 1024 ; nor is the requirement of a remit titur by an appellate court ; Burdict v. R. Co., 123 Mo. 221, 27 S. W. 453, 26 L. R. A. 384, 45 Am. St. Rep. 528 ; Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. Syfan, 91 Tex. 562, 44 S. W. 1064.
Qualifications. Jurors must possess the qualifications which may be prescribed by statute, must be free from any bias caused by relationship to the parties or interest in the matter in dispute, and in criminal cases must not have formed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
"1. They are to be good and lawful men. 2. Of sufficient freeholds, according to the provisions of several acts of parliament. 3. Not convict of any notorious crime. 4. Not to be of the kindred or alliance of any of the parties. 5. Not to be such as are pre possessed or prejudiced before they hear their evidence." Cond. Gen. 297.
At common law there was a freehold quali fication, but to no certain amount ; by •2 Hen. V. it was 40s.; Thomp. & Merr. Juries 20 ; Proffatt, Jury Trial § 115.
An alien may serve as a juror, that is, a foreigner intending to be naturalized; Peo ple v. Scott, 56 Mich. 154, 22 N. W. 274; con tra, State v. Primrose, 3 Ala. 546, and see Proffatt, Jury Trial § 116. An atheist has been held to be disqualified; Shane v. Clarke, 3 Harr. & McH. (Md.) 101. Women could not serve as jurors at common law, except upon a jury to try an issue under a writ de venire inspiciendo (q. v.); 3 Bla. Corn. 362. They are now qualified in some states.
Under U. S. R. S. § 5440, an official of the United States is disqualified as a juror by reason of his relations with the government although not a salaried officer ; Crawford v. U. S., 212 U. S. 183, 29 Sim. Ct. 260, 53 L. Ed. 465, 15 Ann. Cas. 392, where it was put upon the ground that bias disqualifies a juror, and it is implied in the relation between employer and employee and actual evidence thereof is unnecessary (a criminal' case in a federal court).
Under the common law the master, serv ant, steward, counsellor, or attorney, of ei ther party is not a competent juror and stat utory provisions of qualifications not incon sistent with this rule do not abrogate id.; Block State, 100 Ind. 357.
It has been held that where one of the jurors was incompetent, as an alien, his pres ence vitiated the whole panel and the ver dict; Shane v. Clarke, 3 Harr. & McH. (Md.) 101; unless waived by failure to challenge; State v. Pickett, 103 Ia. 714, 73 N. W. 346, 39 L. R. A. 302 ; 11 Harv. L. R. 545. The fact discovered after verdict that a juror who was not challenged was unable to understand the English language was held insufficient ground for granting a trial ; San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Gray (Tex.) 66 S. W. 229 ; such ignorance of English language would not be a ground of challenge ; In re Allison, 13 Colo. 525, 22 Pac. 820, 10 L. R. A. 790, 16 Am. St. Rep. 224 ; but the failure to chal lenge has been held to be a waiver of the right ; 2 Moo. & Sc. 41; St. Louis & S. E. R. Co. v. Casner, 72 Ill. 384 ; but where the disqualification was not known until after the verdict, a new trial was granted as a matter of discretion ; Woodward v. Dean, 113 Mass. 297; and as a matter of right; Shane v. Clarke, 3 liar. & McH. (Md.) 101, An employee of a stockholder of a corpo ration is not disqualified by reason of his employment ; Sansouver v. Dye Works, 28 R. I. 539, 68 Atl. 545 ; 13 N. Burns. 8. Business relations which disqualify one from acting as a juror are: Employer and employee ; Lou isville, N. 0. & T. R. Co. v. Mask, 64 Miss. 738, 2 South. 360 ; even if the former is a corporation ; Burnett v. R. Co., 16 Neb. 332, 20 N. W. 280; landlord and tenant ; Hath away v. Helmer, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 29; contra, Arnold v. Fruit Co., 141 Cal. 738, 75 Pac. 326 ; partners ; Stumm v. Hummel, 39 Ia. 478 ; master and servant ; State v. Coella, 3 Wash. 99, 28 Pac. 28 ; attorney and client ; 3 Bla. Corn. 363 ; but not a client of the attorney in the suit ; McCorkle v. Mallory, 30 Wash. 632, 71 Pac. 186 ; business relations with a party may disqualify in a particular case, though not from the relation generally ; Laid law v. Sage, 2 App. Div. 374, 37 N. Y. Supp• 770; but not the mere relation of a debtor and creditor ; Thompson v. Douglass, 35 W. Va. 337, 13 S. E. 1015.