There are 'but two questions made in the case. *20 Eirst, that his Honor erred in his ruling as to a challenge made on the part of the plaintiff in the following form, “ If аny juror in this box is related to any one of the defеndants, by blood or marriage, he is requested to rеtire from the jury-box.” No juror retired or offered to retire or make any response. His Honor certainly permitted this form of challenge (if it may bе called one) and he made no objection to any juror’s retiring or responding to the chаllenge. How then did his Honor err in this matter ? He permittеd the plaintiff to have his own way; and if any thing injurous to thе plaintiff resulted from this form of challenge, it was thе fault of the plaintiff, and not of his Honor.
Challenges to jurors must be made, in apt time, and before the jurors are impanneled. It comes too late after verdict. State v. Perkins, 66, N. C. R. 126. In that case, his Honor, the Chief Justice, says : “ It was the misfortune of the defendant that neither he nor his counsel had been sufficiently on the alert to enable them to find out the fact in apt time to make it a cause of сhallenge, that one of the j urors was on the grаnd jury when the bill was found. This might have been a ground for his Honоr, in the Court below, to grant anew trial, if he had any reason to suspect unfairness on the part of the prosecution.” His Honor further remarks in that case : “ After a defendant has taken his chances for an acquittal the purposes of justice are not subserved by listening too readily to objections that were not taken in apt time.” In fact this, instead of being regarded as error in not аllowing a challenge to a juror, must be for not аllowing a new trial; and regarded in that light the above mentioned case is full authority for the ruling of his Honоr, had it appeared that the juror was in fact incompetent, and that the challenge must have been allowed had it been taken “in aрt time.” New much more then in this case was his Honor right in rеfusing a new trial, where the connection by marriаge was so remote, that, in all probability, the jurоr had forgotten' the connection, if he ever *21 knew it, and where it was so remote that neither his Hоnor nor the plaintiff’s counsel was able to сompute the degree of relationship. At аll events there is nothing appearing on the rеcord, in regard to the j nror, to authorize .this Court tо disturb the verdict of the j ury.
As to the other point, that his Honor submitted a question of law to the jury instead of deciding it himself, the counsel is wholly mistaken in supposing that the question of the negotiability of the note was submitted to the jury; as his Honor, in his instructions upon this part of the case, assumed that the note was negotiable.
There is no error.
Pee Curiam. Judgment affirmed.