
    The State against Hardy Harding.
    
      Columbia,
    
    1800.
    The integrity of a juryman shall never he impeached by an affidavit* unless a copy of it has been duly served on him, that he might have an opportunity of exculpating hhnself-
    The very of new evidence after trial and conviction, not a good ground for a new
    HORSE-STEALING.
    A case tried before Mr. Justice Ramsay, in Pendleton district, where the prisoner was convicted of the offence.
    He was ordered down to Columbia-, in order to be present at the argument on a motion for a new trial on his behalf.
    Mr. Gist, on the part of the prisoner, moved for a new trial on three grounds.
    1. Misconduct on the part of the foreman of the jury who tried the cause, in saying before the trial, “ By God “ he was one of the jury who was to try the prisoner, and M he would hang him at all events.”
    2. That he had discovered new evidence since the trial, which, if it had been produced, would have evinced the prisoner’s innocence-.
    
      See tlie ease of Jiraifton v. Thompson, ante, vol. 1. p. 263. Jiileifs edit-
    3. That the evidence offered to the jury, was not sufficient to warrant the conviction.
    After hearing the arguments of the counsel on all the different points, the judges were unanimously of opinion,, on the first ground, that no affidavit should be received on a motion of this kind, to call in question the integrity of a juryman, or impeach his verdict, unless a copy of it had been served upon him, before the rising of the court; as had been laid down in Duestoé’s case, for murder, ante, vol. 1. p. 377. Riley’s edit, and also in Simpson’s case, who was tried for negro-stealing at Camden ; in order that such juryman might have an opportunity of exculpating himself, or otherwise satisfying the court, that he had not been guilty of any such misconduct as he had been charged with ; and this was due, as well to the character of the jurors of the country, as to the cause of justice itself.
    Secondly. That the discovery of new evidence after trial, (which is so frequently made a ground on motions for new trials,) was not a good ground for a new trial; because, on a sufficient affidavit of the absence of witnesses in criminal, as well as in civil cases, the court will always postpone the . . , . , trial m order to give the prisoner an opportunity to procure their attendance, and be better prepared at the next court -f and that it might have a very mischievous tendency, to establish a precedent of this kind, after a trial and conviction, and after all the evidence on the part of the state had been fully disclosed ; as it was easy to foresee, that a man whose life was in danger, would in every case, even to gain time, make use of a pretext of this kind to create delay ; but more especially by the assistance of confederates, he'might be enabled to procure unprincipled men to be witnesses, to contradict the evidence on the part of the state, and thereby defeat the ends of justice.
    Thirdly. That as the judge who tried the cause, had reported from his notes that the evidence was very strong against the prisoner, there was not the least shadow of reason for granting a new trial on that ground.
    
      The motion for a new trial, was therefore refused, on all the grounds.
   After which, sentence of death was pronounced by the judge who tried the prisoner, he was remanded back to the gaol of Pendleton, and was executed agreeably to his sentence.

Present, Waties, Bay, Johnson, Ramsay and Treze-V ANT.  