8.  Juror  connected  by  marriage  with  one

of  the  parties — The  fact  that  one  of  the  jurors
was  nearly  connected  by  marriage  with  the  plain-
tiff, was  held  to  be  no  ground  for  setting  aside  a
verdict  for  plaintiff,  where  it  was  not  disclosed
that  the  affinity  continued  at  the  time  of  trial,
or  that  there  was  any  issue  of  the  marriage  still
living,  or  anything  else  from  which  it  could  be
inferred  that  the  mistake  was  productive  of  any
injustice,  and  where  it  appeared  that  the  defen-
dant was  aware  of  the  connection  before  the
trial  was  over,  but  took  no  exception  till  he  found
that  the  verdict  was  against  him.
Hart  v.  Pryor  etal.,in.&  C,  53.
9.  Jurors— DlsquallUcatlon  of,  In  certain

cases  not  removed  by  5th  R.  S.,  c.  109—

Semble,  that  ch.  109  of  the  Revised  Statutes,
removing  certain  disqualifications  of  "Judges,
Justices  of  the  Peace,  or  persons  empowered


805


JUS  TERTII,


806


by  law  to  exercise  judicial  functions,"  does  not
apply  to  jurors.
Ki7ig  V.  The  Municipality  of  Kings,

7R.  &G.,68;
7C.  L.  T„  119.
10.  Jaror  related  to  party— The  foreman

of  a  jury  which  found  a  verdict  for  defendant
was  a  cousin  of  defendant's  wife  ;  this  fact  was
not  known  to  the  plaintiff  till  after  the  verdict,
though  his  attorney  stated  to  defendant's  attor-
ney before  the  jury  announced  their  verdict*
tliat  if  it  was  for  defendant  it  would  be  set  aside
on  account  of  the  relationship.  The  Judge  who
tried  the  cause  was  satisfied  with  the  verdict
found.
The  Court  refused  to  disturb  the  verdict.
LeBtanc  v.  McRae,  2  R.  &  C,  240.
