State v. . Hogg

Rui'FiN, Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court: We have looked into the act of 1807, ch. 53, and sundry others of a similar nature; and the result is that we think the exemptions therein meant,, are from services as Jurors of the original Panncl. Such exemptions are not intended as privileges or a compensation to the party, unless where it is expressly so stated, as in the act of 1794, ch. 4, in favor of Patrols. The purpose of the Legislature is to forward and promote the public advantage, by leaving Officers, Physicians and others, to exercise their employments without interruption. So far therefore as serving on a Jury does notinterfere with their public avocations, they aré still liable to be called on for that ser *320 vice. Butin as much as no one can be summoned as a a Talesman, excepta by-stander at the court, no inconvenience can result to the community from compelling a pe,.son to serve in that capacity ; for the very fact of iiis being a by-stander proves, that lie has not then any official or professional engagements, which require his atten-iioti. If, however, such duties should occur, after he is summoned, it is in the power and has been the practice of thee courts, to excuse a Juror upon a proper case.