State v. . Degraffenreid
31 S.E.2d 523
N.C.
1944
Check Treatment
Stacy, C. J.

This is the same case that was before us at the Fall Term, 1942, reported in 222 N. C., 113, 22 S. E. (2d), 217, and again at the Fall Term, 1943, reported in 223 N. C., 461, 27 S. E. (2d), 130. It is here now on questions of alleged jury defect and bias or misconduct.

First, in respect of the challenge to the juror Pattishall, it is observed that while he had formed some opinion adverse to the defendant, he further stated he could render a fair and impartial verdict entirely in accordance with the law and the evidence, uninfluenced by any previously formed opinion. This suffices to support the court’s finding of indiffer-ency. S. v. English, 164 N. C., 497, 80 S. E., 72. Similar rulings, under almost identical circumstances, were upheld in the cases of S. v. Dixon, 215 N. C., 438, 2 S. E. (2d), 371; S. v. Terry, 173 N. C., 761, 92 S. E., 154; S. v. Foster, 172 N. C., 960, 90 S. E., 785; and S. v. Banner, 149 N. C., 519, 63 S. E., 84.

It is provided by G. S., 9-14, that the judge “shall decide all questions as to the competency of jurors,” and his rulings thereon are not subject to review on appeal unless accompanied by some imputed error of law. S. v. Winder, 183 N. C., 776, 111 S. E., 530; S. v. Bailey, 179 N. C., 724, 102 S. E., 406; S. v. Bohanon, 142 N. C., 695, 55 S. E., 797; S. v. Register, 133 N. C., 747, 46 S. E., 21; S. v. DeGraff, 113 N. C., 688, *519 18 S. E., 507; S. v. Green, 95 N. C., 611. Tbe ruling in respect of the impartiality of the juror Pattishall presents no reviewable question of law. S. v. Bailey, supra; S. v. Bohanon, supra.

Second, as bearing on the alleged bias or misconduct of the juror Smith, it is enough to say the ruling of the trial court, on the evidence and facts found therefrom, puts an end to the matter. S. v. Montgomery, 183 N. C., 747, 111 S. E., 173; S. v. Tilghman, 33 N. C., 513. It accords with what was said in S. v. DeGraff, supra, in respect of a situation quite similar to the one here presented. The motion was addressed to the court’s discretion. S. v. Maultsby, 130 N. C., 664, 41 S. E., 97; S. v. Council, 129 N. C., 511, 39 S. E., 814; S. v. Lambert, 93 N. C., 618; S. v. Miller, 18 N. C., 500. The exception based on this part of the record is not sustained. S. v. Boggan, 133 N. C., 761, 46 S. E., 111; S. v. Harper, 101 N. C., 761, 7 S. E., 730; S. v. Godwin, 27 N. C., 401.

As no reversible error has been made to appear, the verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.