
    *Vanauken against Beemer.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    Challenge lé11® array. 
    
    AT the trial, Vanauken presented to the court a chal¡enge array, upon the ground that the constable was related by blood to the plaintiff. The challenge was overruled by the justice, without trial, because, as the transcript states, the constable was not related to the plaintiff within the third degree.
    
      Wall moved for reversal.
    
      
      
        Vannoy vs. Givens, 3 Zab. 201, Cranmer vs. Crawley, Coxe 43. Den vs. Clark, Coxe 446.
      
    
   By the Court.

The justice has erred in his opinion of the law, in regard to this. matter. A challenge to the array is not governed by the relationship within the third degree. The officer who returns the panel, must be from all exception and charge of partiality. There may be, to him, two kinds of challenge, either principal or to the favour. The former must be tried by the court, and the latter by triors. Kindred and affinity form grounds for the first, and if they be found to exist, the array must be set aside. But the kindred need not be within the third degree; if it be within the ninth, it will be as conclusive in the case of the officer, as it is in the case of the juror.

Judgment reversed.  