
    John Jeffries and Others versus Isaac Randall.
    It is a good cause of challenge to a juror, in the trial of a real action, in which the jury are to inquire into the value of the land, had no buildings or improvements been made by the tenant, and the increased value of the same, by reason of such improvements, that such juror is interested in a similar question; but if the party neglects to take the objection before the trial, and to put the juror on the voir dire, the exception comes too late after the trial, unless it appears that the party made the requisite inquiry, and failed of discovering the fact before the trial.
    This was a real action, in which a verdict was returned for the demandants at the last September term in this county, and also the increased value of the demanded premises, by virtue of the buildings and improvements made by the tenant, &c., and also the value thereof had no buildings or improvements been made by the tenant, &c., pursuant to the provisions of the statute of 3 807, c. 74, § 3.
    The cause stood over to this term for judgment; and now the demandants move the Court that the verdict may be set aside, and a new trial had ; because that one George Coombs was allowed to sit as a juror in the trial of the action, and that he was interested in a similar question as occupant.
    By the fifth section of the statute before referred to, it is enacted “ That no person shall be allowed to sit upon a jury for the trial of any such action, where the value of the buildings and improvements are to be ascertained, or the value of the premises to be estimated by the verdict, where such person shall be inter ested *in a similar question, either as proprietor or occupant ; but the same shall be good cause of challenge to such juror, any law, usage, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”
   The Court

took time to consider the motion, and afterwards observed that they had at first doubted on the sufficiency of the interest objected to the juror, since it was not suggested that he was party to any action pending, in which a similar question could arise ; but on perusing the provision of the statute, it was apparent that the legislature intended to exclude from juries, in the trial of causes of this description, not only such as were interested, prepossessed with an opinion, or of kindred to either party, but had extended its caution to such as, from their being liable to be interested in a similar question at some future time, might have their affections excited in the trial of a cause.

The objection stated to this juror is made by the statute a good cause of challenge ; but we think it comes too late after a verdict. The oath which, by the statute of 1807, c. 139, § 9, is to be put to any juror before the trial, on motion of either party, reaches this objection. He is to be sworn, “ whether he is any way related to either party, or hath formed or given any opinion, or is sensible of any particular interest or prejudice in the cause; ” and if he does not satisfy the court of his indifference, he is to be struck off the panel.

If, in this case, we had evidence that the juror acted under the influence of improper motives or principles, we should set aside the verdict; or had the demandants made the requisite inquiry on the voir dire, and failed of discovering the fact, which would have disqualified the juror, it would have been within the equity of the statute to grant them relief at this stage of the action ; but having omitted to avail themselves of their rights when the jury was impanelled, the motion cannot now obtain,

Motion overruled. 
      
      
         [Amherst vs. Hadley, 1 Pick. 38. — Ed.]
     