The charge of prejudice, consanguinity, and partiality, was preferred by these Affidavits, against the County Commissioners the and his Deputies, in the arrangement of the present panel of Jurors, that their design was to hurt, and prejudice the present trial, and thus endanger the lives of the defendants, on these grounds the defendants plead for the quashing of the array,

After referring to the statue to show the provision made for such a proceeding, he submitted to the court,

The for the people then arose and made the following observations viz. that the doctrine advanced by , was a novelty to him, as the Affidavits of the defendants predicated no charge against the present panel of Jurors, either individually, or collectively; he endeavoured to show from the statue the array could not be quashed upon the above principle neither did he believe in the Officers being discharged upon a mere Affidavit but the charges ought to be made, and Affidavits, <​filed​> and a trial had before the Court, he said it was the first time he had heard of such a proceeding to quash the array, at the same time nothing alledged against it individually or collectively.

He shewed that the statue referred to by , applied to Civil and not Criminal cases, that although the present Officers of the Court, were willing to submit to such a proceeding, yet he could not suffer the idea of having the panel quashed, by the discharge of all the Officers, of the , upon a mere exparty Affidavit, and that too, made by Five men for ,

He asked for a precedent, in all the experience of this , or any other, in Criminal cases, he defied them to produce a single case. [p. [2]]