Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/443

 UNITED STATES V. HOELKE. 435 �testified that he had a prejudice against insurance companiea generally; that it was founded on the fact that he could not comprehend their proceedings, but that the prejudice would not afïect bis verdict. On this the court said : "Itwaserrortoover- rule the challenge of the juror. * * * A. rnan may have a prejudice against crime, against a mean action, against dis- honesty, and still be a competent juror. This is proper, and such prejudice will never force a juror to prejudge an innocent and honest man. As to this juror, the feeling he entertained against insurance companies was of a bigoted and reprehensible character," etc. �The case of Maretzek v. Caiddwell, 2 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 407, was an action for libel respecting plaintifï's conduct as a theatrical manager. A juror testified that he was opposee! to theatrical representations. It was held that he should not have been, as a matter of law, excluded on that account, bu' that it was ground only for challenge to the favor. But it wilï be observed that the juror had.a prejudice against a whole olas;. of persons, to which the plaintiff Delonged, by reason of their being engaged in a business which was not unlawful. So, when defendants, who were Roman Catholics, were indicted for a riot, growing out of prejudices between Eoman Catholics and others, it was held proper to allow a juror to be asked if he had any bias or prejudice against Roman Catholics. Peo- pie V. Christie, 2 Abb. Pr. 256. �Where the subject-matter inquired about is one on which there is public agitation or diversity of opinion in the com- munity, and strong feelings are excited, greater latitude of inquiry must clearly be allowed than where the question re- lates simply to a matter about which there is no such agita- tion or diversity of opinion. As to the business of deaiing in lottery tickets, it seems to us that there is no such diversity of opinion or public agitation in respect to the policy of the laws prohibiting it, and in respect toits injurious effects upoa the morals and well-being of the community, as to make these questions proper or reasonably necessary to ascertain the impartiality of the jurors. Moreover, at the time thes© questions were asked it had not appeared that the defendant ��� �