
    State v. Oldham.
    The act of 1779, Rev. ch. 1 St, sec. 2, respecting the appointment of Jurors, is only directory, and does not apply to Grand-Jurors.
    He was convicted at this term, of the murder of one Archibald Jackson, and it being demanded of him what he had to say, way sentence of death should not be passed, his counsel, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Taylor, offered reasons in arrest of judgmenl, all of which were abandoned in the course of the observations made npon them, except (he following, viz : That several of those who were of the grand-jury that found the bill, naming them particularly, amongst whom was Mr. Hodges, the foreman, were persons who then severally had a suit or suits depending and at issue in this court, and were therefore disqualified to serve as jurors; and for the maintenance of this objection, they relied upon 1779, ch. 6, sec. 2, in which is this proviso, viz: Provided always, that no County Court shall 'knowingly nominate any person to serve as a juror at two courts successively, or any person who shall have an action or suit at issue in the Superior Court, at, the term to which lie shall be so nominated ; and they said, that under this clause. Judge- Macay and Judge Haywood, on the Western circuit of the spring 1795, had rejected all such jurors as disqualified.
   Per curiam

This act is only directory. The intent of it was to exclude suitors from the petit jury, from an apprehension lest, in the course of the term, such persons might combine mutually to serve each other. This is not to be apprehended in the case of a grand-juror, who has it not in his power to render a quid pi'o quo in the same way, should he be ever so much inclined. This art isas well directory to the Superior as to the County Courts. If the County Court ought not knowingly, to nominate suitors for jurors, neither ought this court knowingly, to receive them as petit jurors when sent. The intent of the act is, that they shall be excluded, and so far as the i iew of this act extends, the Superior Court will not suffer its object to be eluded. Upon this ground, the court proceeded in lhe spring circuit of 1795. Et per Williams-that practice was well begun, and I do not know why we have not continued it. The reasons were overruled.  