Plаintiff in error was complained of with others before a justice оf the peace in the following form:
“ State of Michigan, )
County of Saginatu, j
The complaint and exаmination on oath and in writing of Beuben W. Andrus, taken and made before mе, James W. Clark, a justice of the peace of the city of Saginaw, in said county, upon the 14th day of September, A. D. 1876, who being duly sworn, says that heretofore to wit: on the 12th day of September, A. D. 1876, at the townshiр of Chesaning, and in the county aforesaid, Mary Jane Smith, Norris Alexander, Freeman Cargen, and Julia Cargen, feloniously, willfully, and of their malicе aforethought did kill and murder Charles Smith, contrary to the form of the statutе in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Michigan, wherefore the said Beuben W. Andrus prays that the said Mary Jane Smith, Norris Alexander, Freeman Cargen and Julia Cargen may be apprehended and hеld to answer this complaint and further dealt with in relation to the same as law and justice may require.
B. W. Andrus.
Taken, sworn and subscribed to beforе me the day and year first above written.
James W. Clark,
Justice of the Peace.”
The accused being arrested and brought before the
I. It is assigned for error that the justice in certifying the casе to the circuit court only certified that he found the offense “ аs charged in said complaint and warrant to have been cоmmitted, and that there is probable cause to believe them [the defendants] guilty thereof,” and did not find whether the offense was murder in the first or in the second degree. But this was sufficient. Brownell v. People,
II. When the case was called for trial several jurors were challenged for cause, all of whom on being examined under oath testified that they, had heard and read of the case, and had an opinion positive in its character as to whether or not Charles Smith,-named in the information, was murdered, but had neither formed nor expressed an opinion as tо the guilt or innocence of the plaintiff in error, and had no bias оr prejudice for or against her, and believed they could rendеr an impartial verdict according to the evidence. The сircuit judge overruled the challenges. The' ruling was correct. Holt v. People,
III. One Bаlnum, also called as a juror, was challenged for cause, аnd the cause assigned was that he had already been rejeсted as a juror on the trial of Freeman Cargen upon the samе information, on the peremptory challenge of said Freeman. It is said that “the natural prejudice thereby created makеs his impartiality matter of serious doubt.” It is no doubt possible that one may in feeling resent being rejected as a juror, or be prejudicеd thereby against the person challenging him; but that his prejudice will extend to others who had nothing to do with the rejection is a suggestion too unnatural to constitute a basis for judicial action. The challenge was properly overruled.
The plaintiff in error has no cause of complaint on this record, and the conviction is sustained.