Opinion
(Spring Riding, 1804.)
It is no ground for a new trial that one of the jurors was not a freeholder.
INDICTMENT for passing counterfeit money. Amongst other things, evidence was given of his having in his possession, five or six years ago, stamps for making impressions to the similitude of dollars and guineas. Having been convicted, a new trial was moved because one of the jurors was not a freeholder, and this not known to the defendant till after the trial.
A new trial is in the discretion of the Court, who will not grant it unless dissatisfied with the verdict. Here was a full defense and a full examination of the evidence, and it was very sufficient, in my opinion, to warrant a verdict. This is not like the case of a juror who had expressed ill-will towards the defendant before being impaneled; for there, though the verdict was not incompatible with the evidence, there might be reason to suspect the trial had not been impartial.
NOTE. — See S. v. Greenwood, 2 N.C. 141, and the notes thereto.
Cited: S. v. Davis, 80 N.C. 414; S. v. Boon, ib., 465; S. v. Davis, 126 N.C. 1010; S. v. Council, 129 N.C. 517; S. v. Maultsby, 130 N.C. 665; S. v. Upton, 170 N.C. 771; Wilson v. Batchelor, 182 N.C. 95.