434 FEDERAL REPORTER. �-without any prejudice for or against the defendant, and -decide the case strictly within the evidence, without regard to anything that he had heard or known outside of the evi- dence. He was then Bworn as a jurer. �It must be assumed that the jurer might have answered ihese questions in the affirmative, and the question is, wonld he be rendered incompetent as a juror by the fact that he had a prejudice against the lottery business or those who are engaged in it, or that he was disposed in his mind to put an ■«nd to the traffic in lottery tickets, or in favor of active measures for the suppression of the lottery business? �Parties bave a right to be tried by an impartial jury. This does not mean that they have a right to have jurors who have no prejudices or no opinion as to the policy of en- iorcing the laws. If the juror had answered ail these ques- tions in the affirmative, it would only show that he enter- tained a prejudice in favor of enforcing the laws of the state of New York against lotteries, which have been in force for a great number of years. We see nothing in this prejudice to disqualify him. In fact, if he is a good citizen and fit to sit on the jury at ail, he is found to have a prejudice against what is forbidden by law, and against those who break the law, and is bound, also, to be in favor of active measures for the enforcement of the criminal laws of the state. �The cases oited by the defendant as analogous to this are not in point. Albrecht v. Walker, 73 111. 69, was an action for damages for the sale of intoxicating liquor to plaintiff's husband. A juror testified that he had a prejudice against the business in which the defendant was engaged, but not against the defendant himself, and although he might have a prejudice against the man engaged in the business, he did not know that he would start out in the investigation with a prejudice against the man engaged in it. In reference to this Mr. Justice Breese says : "Ail honest men bave a prejudice, «0 to speak, against larceny and other crimes, but if no preju- dice exista againt a party charged with the crime, we do jaot think that of itself is ground for challenge for cause." �In Winnesheik Ins. Co. v. Schueller, 60 111. 465-471, the juror ��� �
