Challenge

[t]o object or except to" or "to put into dispute").

An objection to the capacity or right of a person. In Practice. An exception to the jurors who have been arrayed to pass upon a cause on its trial. An exception to those who have been returned as jurors. Co. Litt. lB5b. The most satisfactory derivation of the word is that adopted by Webster and Crabb, from "call," challeiige implying a calling off. The word is also used to denote exceptions taken to a judge's capacity on account of interest (2 Bin. [Pa.] 454; 4 Bin. [Pa.] 349), and to the sheriff for favor as well as affinity (Co. Litt. 158a; 10 Serg. & R. [Pa.] 336; 11 Serg. & R. [Pa.] 303). Challenges are of the following classes: (1) To the array. Those which apply to all the jurors as arrayed or set in order by the officer upon the panel. Such a challenge is, in general, founded upon some error or plies to all the jurors so obtained. These are not allowed in the United States generally (Colby, Prac. 235; 2 Blatchf. [U. S.] 435), the same end being attained by a motion addressed to the court, but are in some states (33 Pa. St. 338; 12 Tex. 252; 24 Miss. 445; 1 Mann. [Mich.] 451; 20 Conn. 610; 1 Zab. [N. J.] 656). (2) To the poll. Those made separately to each juror to whom they apply. Challenges to the poll are either: (a) For cause, — ^those for which some reason sanctioned by law is assigned. (b) Peremptory, — ^those made without assigning any cause, and which must be allowed as of course. The number of these is variously limited by statute. A challenge for cause lies also to the array. Challenge for cause was anciently divided into challenges: (i) For principal cause, — being for such cause as, if substantiated, was sufficient to show bias or disqualification. The grounds of principal challenge were pro Tpter defectum, for disability, as infancy or mental unsoundness; prdpter affectum, for partiality, as where the juror was of kin to the party, or bore some confidential relation to him; propter delictum, on account of crime committed by the juror, whereby he was disqualified. 3 Bl. Comm. 361. To these was sometimes added propter honoris respeetum, from respect to a party's rank or nobility. (ii) To the favor, — ^those which are founded on reasonable ground to suspect that the jury is partial, though the cause be not so evident as to warrant a principal challenge. Challenges for principal cause were tried by the court; those to the favor by triors. The distinction between challenges to the favor and for principal cause is now obsolete. Several other divisions of challenges for cause have been suggested by American statute or text writers, as that into challenge grounded on general disqualificatipn, and challenges grounded on disqualification in respect of the particular case (Thomp. Trials, § 40), or that into challenges for actual bias, being for actual partiality as to the cause or the parties; and for implied bias, being such relationship towards _ a party or the cause as wiH, in contemplation of law, necessarily give rise to an implication of partiality, such as consanguinity to a party; confidential relation with a party; service on a previous jury in the cause, etc. Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 116, §§ 18, 19. In Election Law. Formal objection to the right of a person to vote at a particular election, or in a particular precinct. Generally made at the time the vote is offered. In Criminal Law. A request by one person to another to fight a duel. It may be oral or written. in France, which took cognizance of and registered the accounts of the king's revenue. Nearly the same as the English court of exchequer. Enc. Brit.

1. To object or except to; to prefer objections to a person, right or instrument; to formally call into question the capability of a person for a particular function or the existence of a right claimed or the sufficiency or validity of an instrument.
2. As a noun, the word signifies the objection or exception so advanced.
3. An exception taken against legal document, as a declaration, count, or writ. But this use of the word is now obsolescent.
4. An exception or objection preferred against a person who presents himself at the polls as a voter, in order that his right to cast a ballot may be inquired into.
5. An objection or exception to the personal qualification of a judge or magistrate about to preside at the trial of a cause; as on account of personal interest, his having been of counsel, bias, etc.
6. An exception or objection taken to the jurors summoned and returned for the trial of a cause, either individually, (to the polls,) or collectively, (to the array.) People v. Travers, 88 Cal. 233, 26 Pac. 88; People v. Fitspatrick, 1 N. Y. Ch. R. 425.

At common law. The causes for principal challenges fall under four heads:
(1) Propter honoris respectum. On account of respect for the party's social rank.
(2) Propter defectum. On account of some legal disqualification, such as infancy or alienage.
(3) Propter affectum. On account of partiality; that is, either expressed or implied bias or prejudice.
(4) Propter delictum. On account of crime; that is, disqualification arising from the conviction of an infamous crime.

— Challenge for canse. A challenge to a juror for which some cause or reason is alleged. Termes de 1a Ley; 4 Bl. Comm. 353. Thus distinguished from a peremptory challenge. Turner v. State, 114 Ga. 42l, 40 S. E. 308; Cr. Code N. Y. 1903, § 374.

— Challenge propter affectum. A challenge interposed on account of an ascertained or suspected bias or partiality, and which may be either a principal challenge or a challenge to the favor. Harrisburg Bank v. Forster, 8 Watts (Pa.) 306 ; State v. Sawtelle, 66 N. H. 488, 32 Atl. 831; Jewell v. Jewell, 84 Me. 304, 24 Atl. 858, 18 L. R. A. 473.

— Challenge to the array. An exception to the whole panel in which the jury are arrayed, or set in order by the sheriff in his return, upon account of partiality, or some default in the sheriff, coroner, or other officer who arrayed the panel or made the return. 3 Bl. Comm. 359; Co. Litt. 1556; Moore v. Guano Co., 130 N. C. 229, 41 S. E. 293; Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272, 34 S. B. 579; Durrah v. State. 44 Miss. 789.

— Challenge to the favor. Is where the party has no principal challenge, but objects only some probable circumstances of suspicion, as acquaintance, and the like, the validity of which must be left to the determination of triors, whose office it is to decide whether the juror be favorable or unfavorable. 3 Bl. Comm. 363 ; 4 Bl. Comm. 353; Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272, 34 S. E. 579; State v. Sawtelle, 66 N. H. 488, 32 Atl. 831; State v. Baldwin, 1 Tread. Const (S. Ct) 292.

— Challenge to the panel. The same as a challenge to the array. See supra. And see Pen. Code Cal. 1903, § 1058.

— Challenge to the poll. A chnilenge made separately to an individual juror; as distinguished from a challenge to the array. Harrisburg Bank v. Forster, 8 Watts (Pat) 306.

— General challenge. A species of challenge for cause, being an objection to a particular juror, to the effect that the juror is disqualified from serving in any case. Pen. Code Cal. § 1071.

— Peremptory challenge. In criminal practice. A species of challenge which a prisoner is allowed to have against a certain number of jurors, without assigning any cause. Lewis v. U. S.. 146 U. S. 370, 13 Sup. Ct. 136, 36 L. Ed. 1011; Turpin v. State, 55 Md. 482; Leary v. Railway Co.., 69 N. J. Law, 67, 54 AU. 527; State v. Hays, 23 Mo. 287.

— Principal challenge. A challenge of a juror for a cause which carries with it, prima fade, evident marks of suspicion either of malice or favor; as that a juror is of kin to either party within the ninth degree ; that he has an interest in the cause, etc. 3 Bl. Comm. 363. A species of chnilenge to the array made on account of partiality or some default in the sheriff or his under-officer who arrayed the panel.

An exception or objection taken against either persons or things, but more particularly an exception or objection taken to the jurors summoned and returned for the trial of a cause.

1. To object or except to; to prefer objections to a person, right, or instrnment; to formally call into question the capability of a person for a particular function, or the existence of a right cluimed, or the suflicieney or validity of an instrument, 2. As a noun, the word signifies the objection or exception so advanced. 3. An exception taken against legal documents, a8 a devlaration, count, or writ. But this use of the word is now obsolescent. 4. An exception or objection preferred against a person who presents himself at the polls as a vuter, in order that his right to cast a ballot may be inquired into, 5. An objection or exception to the personal qualification of a judge or magistrate about to preside at the trial of a cause; ason account of personal interest, his having been of counsel, bias, ete, 6. An exception or objection taken to the jurors summoned and returned for the trial of a cause, either individually, (to the polls,) or collectively, (to the array.) AT coNMON Law. The causes for principal challenges fallunder four heads: (1) Propter honoris respectum. On account of respect for the party’s social rank. (2) Propter defectum. On account of some legal disqualification, such as inianey or alienage. (3) Propier ajffectum. On aceount of partiality; that is, either expressed or implied bias or prejudice. (4) Propter delictum. On account of crime; that is, disqualification arising from tha conviction of an infamous crime.

' 1. A request to fight — to fight a duel. Whether made by word or letter, is indictable at common law. Tends to a breach of the peace. He who knowingly carries «■ challenge for, another is gu Uty of the offense." See Phize-mght. 2. Objection to the legality of a vote about to be cast. See Ballot. 3. Objection to a cause being tried before a particular judge on account of alleged bias, prejudice, interest, or other disqualification. ' Chicago & Pacific R. Co. v. Mc Glinn, 114 U. S. 547 (1885), Field. J. 2 3 Bl. Com. 328. >2 Bl. Com. 338; 4 Kent, 301; 1 Washb. E. P. 103. *3B1. Com. 123; j6. 46'l. » [1 Washb. E. P. 88. " Clare V. People, 9 Col. 133 (1886), Helm, J. ' Mid. E. chalenge^ a claim: F. chalotige, a dispute, accusation. 4. Objection to a juror or jurors drawn to try a cause. Challenge to the array. An exception to the whole panel in which the jury are arrayed or set in order by the sheriff in his return. 1 The reason which, before awarding the venire, would be sufficient to cause it to be directed to the coroner or to elisors, will be sufficient to quash the array when made by an officer of whose partiality there is any fair ground of suspicion; also, if the sheriff arrays the panel under the direction of either party, i Challenge to the polls. An exception to particular jurors. Lies for any matter showing disqualification. Also known as " principal challenge" and as the " challenge for cause." Challenge for cause. For which a reason is assigned, — to the array or to the polls. An objection to a particular juror; and may be "general" — that he is disqualified from serving in any case, or "particular" — that he is disqualified froin serving in ttie action on trial.* Vhallenge for favor. Of the same nature and efi Eect as a principal challenge "propter affectum." Peremptory challenge. For which no reason is assigned. Principal challenge. 1. "Propter defectum " — for disability: as, alienage, infancy, unsound mind, insu'fiicient jsroperty. 3. " Propter affectum " — for bias or partiality: as, opinion formed; of kin to a party, or of the same fraternity or corporation; his attorney, servant, or tenant, or entertained by him; promised money for verdict; sued by exceptant in an action involving legal malice; being formerly a juror or an arbitrator in the matter; influenced by scruples against the punishment. 8. "Propter delictum" — for an offense committed: as, convicted of treason, forgery, perjury, or otlier crimen falsi.3 A jiu-or unsuccessfully challenged for cause maybe challenged peremptorily. In felonies, at common law, thirty-five peremptoi-y challenges were allowed the accused; at present the number is about twenty in capital cases; in civil cases, if allowed at all, o^ly to a very limited extent. The State is allowed peremptoiy challenges in capital cases, the number varying in the different States. When a challenge for bias, actual or implied, is disallowed, and the juror is peremptorily challenged and ' 3 Bl. Com, 359. 'Cal. Penal Code, § 1071; 70 Oal. 11. excused, and a competent juror is obtained in his place, no injury is done the accused, if, until the jury is completed, he has other peremptory challenges which he can use.^ Experience has shown that one ot the most effective means to free the jury-box from men unfit to be there is the exercise of the peremptory challenge... The number of challenges must necessarily depend upon the discretion ot the legislature, and may vary according to the condition of different communities, and the difficulties in them of securing intelligent and impartial juries. Originally, by the common law, the crown could challenge peremptorily without limitation as to number. By an act passed in the time ot Edward I, the right was restricted to challenges for cause. But, by rule of court, the crown wrfs not obliged to show cause till the whole panel was called. Those not accepted on the call were directed to stand aside; and if a full jury was not otherwise obtained, the crown was required to show ^ause against those jurors; if no sufficient cause appeared, the jury was completed from them. The right to challenge is the right to reject, not to select, a juror. If from those who remain an impartial jury is obtained, the constitutional right of the accused is maintained.^ Challenges are to be made before the jury is sworn. In the Federal courts the justness of a challenge is determined by the judge, without the aid of triors." See Jurt; Opiniox, 2; TRmas; Voia DraE.

[L. Fr. chalenge, from chalenger, calanger, to object, to claim; L. Lat. calumnia, calangia; exceptio.^ In practice. An exception or objection taken either against persons or things. Cowell, The word had this large sense in old practice, a writ or count being as proper a subject of challenge as a juror. See Chodm^ get. In modem practice, however, its signification has been materially narrowed, and it is now almost exclusively used to denote An exception or objection taken to the jurors summoned and returned for the trial of a cause, either individually, (to the polls), or collectively, (to the array). See infra. Bracton, in tueatin^ of the law of challenge, (which has undergone comparatively little change since his time,) employs neither calumnia nor calangia to designate the objection taken, but calls it exceptio contra Juratores. Bract, fol. 185. In Britton chalenge (from which is derived the modem term challenge) is introduced. Britt* c. 62. To CHALLENGE. [L. Fr. chalenger, calenger, calanger; L. Lat. codumnitm^, calumpniare.] In practice. To call to answer; to accuse; to appeal, in the ancient sense of the word. See Appeal, aad see infra. To claim or assert a right. See Cha^ lenger. To dispute or call in question another's right; hence to object or except to. To object or except to a person. To except against those that are returned to be jurors. Co. Litt. 155 b. T^as is the proper signification of the term in modem practice. The etymolo^ of this word has been variously explained. The Fr. chalenger, from wbich it is immediate^ derired, was used in several senses, as given under that word, 9upra. Lord Coke traces it, through the L. Lat. calumr Uare, ehalumniare, and ealumjmiare from the old Fr. ealoir or chcdoir, to care for or foresee. (7o. l Att. 165 b. Mr. Crabb inclines to derive it from call, " to challenge " meaning " to call or eingle out " a person by way of objection to him. C%66*« Hist. Eng, Law, 299. This deri< ration is adopted by Webster, (who explains challenge to mean '* to call off a juror or jurors," "to demand that a juror shall not sit in trial upon a cause;") and receives great support from the fact that appel, the French word for challenge, is derived from the Latin appellare, to call upon, to call by name. The practice of challenging jurors is mentioned by Blackstone as answering to the recueatio judieis, (rejection of b, judex,) in the civil and canon laws. Cod. 3. 1. 16. Decretal, lib. 2, tit. 28, c. 36. Mr. Spence goes further, and speaks of "the Roman right of challenge" as introduced into England or confirmed, at the Conquest. 1 8pefiee*$ Chancery, 10 b. There was a usage of the middle ages however, which, from its connection with the old trial by peers, and the judicial combat, as well as Its bearing upon the present popular sense of the term challenge, deserves a passing notice. This was the proceeding called an appeal of false judgment; by which a party dissatisfied with the judgment of a court was allowed to appeal the peers of whom the court was composed, that is, to challenge and fight them. Esprit des Lois, liv. 28, c. 27. Beaumanoir, ch. 61, 6Y. Defoniaines, ch. 21, 22, cited ibid. See Appeal of false judgment. Challenob to the array. An exception to the whole panel in which the jury are arrayed, or set in order by the sheriff in his return, upon account of partiality, or some default in the sheriff, coroner, or other officer who arrayed the panel or made the return.* 3 Bl. Com. 869. Co. Lilt. 155 b, 156 a. Wharton's Am. Crim, Law, 699. See Array, Panel. Challbvoe to the polls. [Lat. in capita, against the individuals.] An exception to any one or more of the individuals returned as jurors on the trial of a cause, as not being indifferent between the parties. Termes de la ley. Co. Litt. 156 a. 3 Bl. Com. 361. The grounds of this kind of challenge, or rather of principal challenges to the polls, are reduced by Lord Coke under four heads:— propter honoris rttpecturn, propter defectum, propter affectum and propter delictum, (qq. v.) Co. Litt, 166 b. Challenge peremptory. A privilege allowed to a prisoner in criminal cases, of challenging peremptorily a certain number of jurors, without assigning any cause. Termes de la ley. 4 Bl. Com. 363. Co. Litt. 166 b. This is called by Blackstone "an arbitrary and capricious species of challenge," and is permitted in capital cases in favorem vitce. 4 BL Com. 363. Co. Litt. 166 b. The number of peremptory challenges allowed by the law of England is thirty -five in cases of treason, and twenty in cases of felony. 4 BL Com. 364. 4 Steph. Com. 424. Stat 22 ffen VIII. c. 14. Stat. 6 Geo. IV. c. 50, s. 29. The same numbers were adopted by the Act of Congress, April 30, 1190, sec. 30. For the provisions made by the laws of the different states on this subject, see Wharton's Am. Crim. Law, 602, 604. And see U. S» Digest, and Supplement, Jurors, I. U. S. Ann. Dig. 1847, 1848, h. t. Challenge for cause. [L. Fr. pur cause.] A challenge for which some cause or reason is alleged. Termes de la ley. 4 BL Com. 363. Thus distinguished from a peremptory challenge. Challenge principal. A species of challenge to the polls, so called, according to Lord Coke, because if it be found true, it stands sufficient of itself without leaving any thing to the conscience or discretion of the triers. Co. Litt 166 b. Or, according to Sir Wm. Blackstone, (who confines it to the species of challenge propter affectum,) it is so called from the circumstance that the cause assigned carries with it prima facie evident marks of suspicion, either of malice or favor, and which, if true, cannot be overruled. 3 BL Com. 363. See 4 Id. 363. A species of challenge to the array, as distinguished from a challenge to the favor. Co. Litt 156 a. Challenge to the favor, or for favor, is where the party has no principal chal* lenge, but objects only some probable circumstances of suspicion, as acquaintance, and the like, the validity of which must be left to the determination of triors, whose office it is to decide whether the juror be favorable or unfavorable. 3 BL Com. 868. 4 Id. 353. r There is some confusion in the books in regard to classifying the various subdivisioiis bf challenges above defined. The older authorities seem to have understood peremptory and principal challenges to signify the same thing. Catoell, citing Stawutf. PI, Cor. 167, 168. Blount, citing Lamb, Mren. lib. 4, c. 14. Termes de la %. The challenge /or cause seems also to have been confounded with the challenge for favor. Termes de la ley. Cowell, citing Kitch. 92. Sir W. Blackstone makes principal challenges and challenges to the favor, subdivisions of one species of challenge to the polls, viz., the challenge propter affectum. 3 BL Com. 363. Lord Coke, on the other hand, makes them the leading divisions both of challenges to the array, and challenges to the polls. Co. Litt. 166 a, 166 b.

This word has several significations. 1. It is an objection to a person or thing; as, I challenge such a juror. 2. A call by one person of another to single combat, which is said to be a challenge to fight.