UNITED' STATES t. BOSaBR. 197 �tion is a criminal cause br- inatter, only diifteriiig in meye form from an indictment, the qiieen'S e'oronef . prefemrig the information instead of the jurors presenting ai'bill; IsUt, toail intenta and purpbses, the one being as nauoh el cri'minal riiat- ter as the other. ' ' " . �In BdUey'V, Kalcumazoo'Publishing Co. 40 Mich. '247, 255, it is held tiiat tinder a justification iii. a suit for'a libel there is iib substaniiat variance betWeen arr'itilegatidn that a man bas' been iridiete'd, and ptoqf tHat he bas beeii piro'secut'edaiia convieted in a justice's court en a criiiiinal iiiiormation. �A tnotibn fot'a new trial is made on the ground pi alleged �errofs at the trial. One tuddington, iiaving tieen called as �a jurbr, wa^ exainined. He testifl'ed that he could not say �positively -ttrhethei: he -was'a member' of the Society for the �Suppression pf Vice. He eohtinued : �^" 1 don't think I was ever proposed.. I know Anthony Comstock iadi- reCtiy, slightly. t hdve met Mm at his Office in INa'ssau street, iii ttiis city, and went there to see him in regard to some busindss.ofi the societr. J have; not , contributed , to the: society recently, b\it|;J have,, perhaps, withiu two years given hioney to it. It waa not witliin a yiear, but. ^er- li'aps within two years, I contributed this money, I kriow the sdciety is engaged in prosecuting men in the lottery bufeineBe'from'what I have'eeen in. thst papers durlng the iast year or two. ul kaoWiMr. Coittstoeili iB.tlj.e agent of the society to which I contrijauted fundg. J tliiak I could ijnd ^ verdict fairlyon the ev'id'ence if it shpuld appear on the trial that tije defendait was eiigag«a in the business of selfin^ loWer;^ tickets, rtiiirik I could give the testimony of the defendanitfpropsr weightif it was a quesT tion of credit^iljty b.etweenhim andMf.,Oom?tqcls, Icould also givf|,t^ testimony of the defendant proper weiglit. if it became ^ question of vet^city betwe'en him aM Mr. Comstock, it b'eing'^uventtlat'deffetidant was engaged in sellirig: lottery ticketsi I dcm't know thal I should give the testunonyof Mr. Comstock more weigh^than 1 should that of the defendant, he being proved to be engaged in the lottery business. When I say I don't knbw, I mean that t should give the evidence of the man I supposed was tttlling'tlie truth more weight than the one I thought was not. I think, the faet that the. defendant, was' engaged' in the lottery business would influeiiee me in giving his testiijionyjcss weight than that of'Mr. Comstock if it' was a question of veracity between them, because I would not likehis-business." . ' �The defendant's counsel theireupon ehallenged the Juror for favor. The challenge was overruled, and the defendant's counser excepted; It is contended for the defendant that the challenge should have been sustained; that while a prejudice ��� �
