TheCouht's       Grizr,  J.     The  practice  at  this  bar  having  been

Opinion.  '  "  o

^"adtU^h*"'  ^^^  many  years  to  proceed  de  novo  in  the  testimony,

I  hardly  feel  at  liberty  now  to  change  it;  though  I
have  rather  grumbled  in  one  or  two  cases;  where
parties  finding  out  from  the  opinion  of  the  District
Judge  where  their  case  pinched,  have  taken  new
testimony  here  to  help  them  out  of  their  difficulty;
and  have  thus  presented  so  different  a  case  to  ;;/^,
that  I  have  reversed  my  brother  Kane's  decisions,
when  they  were  perfectly  right — upon  the  facts
presented  to  liim.  But  under  such  circumstatices  I
have  allowed  no  costs  to  the  party  succeeding,  and
generally  speaking,  should  think  this  rule  to  be  but
equitable.
Rule  allowed.
[APRIL  SESSlOi^S,  1849,  NO  11.  COliMON  LAW  DOCKET.]


BUNCIIARD  VS.  BROWN

{PRACTICE:  PEREMPTORY  CHALLENOEJ

No  Peremptory  Challenges  are  allowed  in  this  Court  to  either  side  wher«
the  jury  has  been  already  struck  on  both  sides.
This  cause  coming  on  before  a  jury  which  had  ^^^\^^^'**
been  struck  on  both  sides,  Mr.  Hirst  asked  permis-
sion  to  make  two  more  peremptory  challenges,  in  the    Statimiiit.
way  allowed  in  the  State  Courts  under  the  Act  of
their  Legislature,*  which  provides  '*that  in  all  civil*  Act  of  April  4th,
suits  each  party  shall  be  allowed  to  challenge  tivo
furors  peremptorily.^'     He  said  that  the  State  prac-
tice had  been  uniformly  adhered  to  in  this  Court  for
twenty  years;  a  statement  in  which  Mr.  Randall
and  other  gentlemen  of  considerable  experience,  had
confirmed  him  in  a  previous  case,t  where  the  right  twhiter.  Brown,
was  a  good  deal  insisted  upon,  as  part  of  the  settled
practice  of  the  Court.
