Clay v. Western Maryland Railroad

Citations

• 221 Pa. 439
• 70 A. 807
• 1908 Pa. LEXIS 508

Syllabus

<p>Jnrg — Examination of jurors as to interest — Discretion of court — Trial —Practice, C. P.</p> <p>The refusal of the trial judge to permit a preliminary examination of jurors as to their interest, will not constitute reversible error where there is nothing to show that the result of the inquiry, if allowed, would afford any ground of challenge for cause, or show such an interest as would disqualify a juror, or that the jurors had formed an opinion, or had any bias or relationship, or had such a connection with the parties, or the subject-matter of the controversy as to affect their impartiality. It is the proper practice in such cases to allow a general inquiry as to the direct or even contingent interest of jurors in the result of the litigation, or in the parties to it, when there appears to be any reasonable ground to believe that some of them may have a possible interest in the result of the litigation, or in the parties, in order that an impartial jury may be selected free from bias or interest; but failure to do so will not constitute reversible error, unless established rules of law are violated, or cause for challenge be shown, or the right to show bias or interest of the jurors be denied, or inquiry into such material facts as might interfere with the selection of an impartial jury be refused.</p> <p>In an action against a railroad cpmpany the appellate court will not reverse a judgment against the defendant because the trial judge refused to permit an examination of jurors on their voir dire to determine whether any of them were employees of another railroad company, where there is nothing in the record to show that such company was interested in, or was in any way connected with, the litigation, or that it would be affected by any verdict that might be rendered.</p> <p>Practice, G. P. — Trial—Answers to points — Refusal to read points— Act of March 24,1877, P. L. 38.</p> <p>Under the Act of March 24, 1877, P. L. 38, points answered in writing and in th