
    The People against Barrett and Ward.
    That a judge has, in a criminal case, ordered a juror to he. withdrawn, is no cause for arresting the judgment on a subsequent trial for the samo offence.
    At the last circuit court, held at Salem, in the county of Washington, the defendants had been indicted, • arraigned, and had pleaded not guilty. After this the District-Attorney moved the court for leave to withdraw a juror, which was granted without the defendant’s consent. On a subsequent day they were again brought up, on the same indictment, and found guilty.
    Russel, on these facts, submitted whether the court can, after a prisoner has been arraigned and pleaded, order a juror to be withdrawn without his consent; and whether if he be s.o withdrawn, the defendant cannot avail himself of that circumstance in arrest of judgment.
   Kent, Oh. J.

This point underwent a very full discus sion in the case of Olcott; it was then determined that a judge's having ordered a juror to be withdrawn is no cause for arresting the judgment on a subsequent trial for the same offence. 
      
      
         See post, 304, S. C., and the decision here overruled.
     