
    Carew and Town of Norwich v. Howard.
    The court will not arrest a verdict which Is In favor of a town, on a motion of the town, because some of the jurors were related to some of the inhabitants.
    Verdict for the plaintiffs last court, and £13 damages, with which the plaintiffs were dissatisfied; and moved in arrest of judgment, that Ebenezer Backus one of the jurors who tried said cause, was and is father to Ebenezer Backus of said Norwich, who is one of tbe plaintiffs. Tbe fact was admitted by tbe defendant; yet be says, that said connection was in tbe knowledge of tbe plaintiffs wben tbe jury were impaneled, and they made no objection to said jurymen.
   Judgment — Tbat tbe motion is insufficient, and tbat tbe plaintiff recover; tbe Town of Norwich is tbe plaintiff to whom tbe juryman was not related; bis being related to some of tbe members tbat compose tbe corporation, is a good challenge to tbe favor. Tbe partiality in this case was in favor of tbe plaintiffs; and if tbe plaintiffs would not suggest it wben tbe jury were impaneled, they may not afterwards take advantage of it in arrest, especially wben it appears to have been in their knowledge, at the time tbe jury were impaneled. . ,  