
    [6] McDONALD v. SHAW.
    Any interference by a party with tbe selection of a jury, is illegal, and is a good ground of challenge.
    Trial at bar.
    The defendant challenged the array of the j ury, because arrayed by the procurement, or under the direction of the plaintiff. In order to establish the fact relied upon, Col. Taylor was produced as a witness, who swore that the plaintiff had handed the venire to him, with a request that he would deliver it to M’Pherson, the deputy sheriff of Hunterdon county, and desire him to summon the jury from the upper part of the county, and not from the neighborhood of Trenton, or words to the same effect. In consequence of this direction, he did not hand the venire personally to M’Pherson, but sent it to him, with the message from the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, did not designate any individuals for selection by the sheriff.
   Per Cur.

Let the array be quashed.

C. J. There is no discriminating between such interferences as would be harmless, or injurious. The purity and very existence of trial by jury, depend upon an impartial selection of those who are to judge between the parties, and the fair execution of the venire. Every species of interference by the parties must be prevented,

Array quashed.

Cited in Chews v. Driver, Coxe 167. 
      
      . See Tr. per Pais 169 ; Vin. Ab., tit. “ Trial” 232.
     