1.    Some years ago eleven or twelve persons were indicted in a district court for a riot, it happened that at the same time when their trial was expected to come on, a man was sent from the same county to be tried for horse-stealing; the venire summoned was composed chiefly, if not wholly, of the defendants for the riot; the obvious reason in this case was that they might be paid for attending as venire-men whilst obliged to attend as defendants. But a case which happened in Dumfries, May term, 1800, is much stronger. A man indicted for murder was put upon his trial, and seven of the jury were sworn; when it was made to appear to the court that his father had delivered to the deputy sheriff who summoned the jury a list of twenty-four persons out of which he requested the jury might be summoned. The sheriff who was an unexperienced young man showed the list to a person, who gave the information to the court. Some of the persons named in the list had been summoned and were actually sworn on the jury before the court had notice of the affair. The trial, as may be supposed, was necessarily stopped.
     2.    A similar provision may be made in respect to the corporate towns, within the state: apportioning the number of jurors from each according to the number of inhabitants.