| 1469.123 |
1469 |
King's Bench |
|
|
| Mich. |
9 |
Edw. 4 |
34 |
46b-47a |
all the Justices
Sulyard, John Suliard
Billyng, Thomas CJKB Billing
|
|
|
|
|
Fitzherbert Challenge 57
Brooke Challenge 85 (not in margin), Proces 144 (not in margin), Venire facias 22 (not in margin) |
3 Hen. 6, fol. 24
20 Hen. 6, fol. 39
18 Edw. 4, fol. 3
14 Hen. 7, fol. 32 accord
14 Hen. 7, fol. 2
19 Hen. 6, fol. 48
21 Hen. 6, fol. 48
Stanford, Plees del Coron 155 g
17 Edw. 3, fol. 48
2 Hen. 6, fol. 12
49 Hen. 6, fol. 14
18 Edw. 4, fol. 3
10 Hen. 7, fol. 7
20 Hen. 6, fol. 42
49 Edw. 3, fo. 2
19 Hen. 6, fol. 9 |
|
| En Bank le Roy, fuit tenus per touts les Justices, que si un panel sur venire facias soit returne |
17 |
(A panel of prospective jurors was summoned on a Venire facias.
The Venire facias was returned and served.
A Tales was also served.
The array of the panel (of prospective jurors) from the Venire facias was challenged (by plaintiff).
The two triors quashed the array of the panel of prospective jurors because the sheriff was son-in-law (fits en ley) to the defendant,.
The array of the Tales was challenged.
All the Justices held that the triors from the principal (Venire facias) who quashed the array from the Venire facias should not try the array of the Tales, and that the array of the Tales should not be challenged until the array of the principal Venire facias be tried.
It was disputed whether a new Venire facias would be awarded to the new sheriff or to the coroners.
Sulyard argued that the new Venire facias would be awarded to the new sheriff.
Billyng CJKB agreed.
A new writ of Venire facias issued to the new sheriff, as the reporter had heard.
A prospective juror was challenged, because he had been chosen arbitrator among the parties.
The triors prayed that on such a special point the prospective juror be sworn to say the truth.
The challenged juror was sworn to say the truth (voier dire, voir dire).
The challenged juror said that he was arbitrator.
The challenged juror was asked (appose) if he had communication of the matter.
The challenged juror answered that he had.
It was demanded of the triors, whether the prospective juror had said the truth.
The triors said 'yes'.
Tthe challenged juror was withdrawn. |
all the Justices (of KB): l' array del principal panel fuit quasse, pur ceo que le Vicount fuit fits en ley (son-in-law) al defendant, &c. mes l' array de 'tales' fuit servie per un novel Vicount
Et brief issist al Viscount 'ut audivi', &c. & la un juror fuit challenge, pur ceo que il fuit eslieu arbitror enter les parties, &c. & il fuit mesme jure pur voier dire, car il fuit dit sur tiel especial point les triors poient prier que il fuit jure pur voier dire, &c. & cesty juror disoit que il fuit arbitror, &c. & fuit appose s' il avoit commuicacion del matter, & dit 'quod habuit', &c. & demande fuit des triors, s' il dit voier, que disoit que oile, pur que il fuit trete, &c. |
|
John Sulyard was created Serjeant in June 1478 (Baker, Readers and Readings, p. 107). |
challenge of a prospective juror for having been an arbitrator between the parties; the prospective juror (sworn to speak the truth (voir dire) and questioned, said that he was arbitrator and that he had had 'communication of the matter'; the prospective juror was withdrawn (treit)
all the Justices (of KB): if a panel (of prospective jurors summoned) on a Venire facias be returned, and served, and also a Tales is served, and the array of the panel is challenged and quashed, that the two who quashed the array ought not try the array of the Tales, because when it (the panel) is quashed, it is as if the jurors had not appeared, etc. but if he (the triors) affirmed the array of the principal (Venire facias), they (the same triors) ought to try the array of the Tales, etc.
and also it was held that the array of the Tales would not be challenged until the array of the principal (Venire facias) be tried, etc. and the array of the principal (Venire facias) was quashed because the sheriff was son-in-law (fits en ley) to the defendant, etc. but the array of the Tales was served by a new sheriff, and so it was disputed whether Venire facias de novo would be awarded to the (new) sheriff or to the coroners,
because Sulyard said that fault (defaut) found in the sheriff would not bind (both) him and his successors
Billyng CJKB: if the array had been quashed in the time of the old sheriff, and Venire facias had been awarded to the coroners, then it (a new Venire facias) would always be sent to the coroners, and (we) will not resort to the new sheriff, etc. but it seems that it is otherwise here, because there is no fault in this new sheriff, etc.
and a writ issued to the sheriff, as I (the reporter) have heard (ut audivi), etc.
and there a juror was challenged because he was chosen (eslieu) arbitrator among the parties, etc. and he himself was sworn to speak the truth (voier dire, voir dire), because it was said on such a special point the triors could pray that he (the challenged juror himself) was sworn to say the truth (voier dire), etc. and this (challenged) juror said that he was arbitrator, etc. and was asked (appose) if he had communication of the matter, and he said that he had, and it was demanded of the trior, if he said the truth, who said 'yes', so he (the challenged) juror was withdrawn |
Holding (tenus)
Panel
Venire Facias
Return
Service Of Writ
Tales
Array
Challenge Of Juror
Quashing
Trial
Array Of Tales
Appearance
Nonappearance
Juror
(Jury)
Affirmation
Affirmance
Array Of The Principal
Principal Panel
Sheriff
Son
Son In Law
Son-In-Law
In-Law
New Sheriff
Dispute (debate)
Venire Facias De Novo
De Novo
New Venire Facias
Award
Coroner
Fault (defaut)
Default
Finding
Binding (lyera)
Successor
Time
Old Sheriff (auncyen)
Sending (maunde)
Always
Resort
Seeming
Otherwise
Issuance
Ut Audivi
Hearing (audivi)
Choice (eslieu)
Arbitrator
Arbitration
Party
Swearing (jure)
Voir Dire
Truth (voier)
Saying The Truth
Speaking Truth
Point
Special Point
Trior
Prayer
Question (appose)
Communication (communicacion)
Matter
Demand
Withdrawal (trete) |
|
