Vance

Vance v. Richardson

Good Law
110 Cal. 414·1895 Cal. LEXIS 1071·42 P. 909
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 13, 1895No. 16016California1,132 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment rendered for plaintiff. The action is to recover damages for an alleged assault and battery committed by appellant upon the person of respondent. The jury gave damages in the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars. The only questions involved relate to certain alleged errors of law.

Appellant contends that the court erred in a ruling concerning his right of peremptorily challenging jurors. It seems that during the examination of the jurors, and before the panel was filled, each party had alternately exercised peremptory challenges. When the panel was completed it was appellant’s turn to challenge, and his attorney said: “ I will pass our peremptory for the present.” The court asked him if he was satisfied with the jury. Counsel replied that it was his right then to challenge, but that he waived it for the present; that if plaintiff exercised his right the panel would be filled again; and that if plaintiff did not exercise a challenge then appellant would nevertheless have the right to challenge another juror. The court informed him that the court did not understand it that way ; and that if he did not then exercise his peremptory challenge, and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.