198 , FEDERAL REPORTER. , �against crime does not disqjialify a person frpiji^ being a juror, the present case 'was Qnc ,of a prejudice against the person ou tpal, and the juror was npt ipipartial; and tjiat the evid;enee showed not onjy a prejudice against the lotte,ry business, but a prejudice against the defendant by reasbn pf his being engaged in that business. : This is an unsound view. Every good citizen, fit to bg a juror, bas necessarily, and ought to ha.v^, a prejudice agciinpt crime; and a prejudice ^^ainst a person yfho is engaged in a business, prpMbited by law, as is tiie seliiug of lottery ticket? by the law o£ the state of New Yprk, such selling being made a crime, (1 Eey. St. 666, § 29,) such prejudice arisiiig ,?olely f rora the fact of his being en- gaged in such business, is no more than a prejudice against the crime involved in being engaged in such business. If it were to be regarded as a prejudice, against the person, no jury could ever be obtained to try a person indicted for any crime. This case falls.within the principleof the case of U. S. V. Noelke, 1 Fbd. Eep. 426, decided by this court. �The juror showed himself to be competent. AU that he said was that, if a, question of veracity arose between the tes- timony of the defendant and that of Mr. Comstock, he thought that the fact that the defendant was engaged in the lottery business would itifluence him in giving the testimony of the defendant less weight than that of Mr. Comstock. Although a question arose as to whether the jury would believe the tes- timony of the defendant, no question of veracity arose be- tween the defendant and Mr. Comstock on the trial. It did not appear that the defendant was a member of the society referred to. He had not contributed any mbney to it for over a year. The case is not within the dicta in Commonwealth v. Engan, 4 Gray, 18. The court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant. The question was one for the jury; and was prfesented to the jury in a proper manner by the court. There was no exception to the charge. It is- contended that the ju^y ,were bound to believe the testimony of the defendant, it being uncontradicted. , In The Helen R. Gooper, 1 Blatchf . 378, it was said by Judge Woodruff that where a witness, otherwise unimpeached, ��� �
