6 Ga. 483 | Ga. | 1849
By the Court.
delivering the opinion.
Two grounds of error have been assigned upon the record to the judgment of the Court below.
First, that the Jury were not impannelled as required by law.
Second, that the verdict of the Jury was contrary to law and evidence and the charge of the Court.
The answer to thatargument is, that the Legislature most clearly contemplated that the owner or manager of the slave would protect his own interest and the rights of his slave; for the right to challenge seven of the Jurors, is expressly given to the owner of the slave. Not only the interest which the owner has in his slave, but his personal attachment for him, will always prompt him to be vigilant in securing and protecting all the rights of his slave ; and, as is too often the case, as we all know, the just penalty of the law is defeated in consequence of such interest and attachment. Here, the owner of the slave thinking, doubtless, it would be for the interest of his slave, as well as for his own interest, to take the first twelve on the Jury list, waived the impannelling more than twenty-three, and we think he had the legal right, under the law, to make such waiver.
Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.