Paine Massacre Notes. See Descriptive List of Sources and Documents.

“Capt. Preston in his Trial challenged peremptorily nineteen Jurors viz. 15 of the Country's Jury, and four talis men; he also challenged two other of the Country's Jurors but by agreement of the Council for the Crown they were not considered as peremptory Challenges by reason that said Preston had not the names of the said two Jurors before he was brot to Trial. N.B. several Talis men were return'd by the Sherif who were excused by the Court for reasons by them offer'd viz. Henry Bromfield Esqr. he having a Commission for the peace, and William Boardman, he having been on the Jury of Inquest and Procter he declaring himself under Biass.” Document found in Min. Bk. 91, SCJ Suffolk, Aug. 1770 (adjournment to 23 Oct. 1770), facing entry of Preston's indictment; now in box marked “Loose Papers Found in Minute Books,” printed in Noble, “Papers Relating to Boston Massacre,” 5 Col. Soc. Mass., Pubns. 58, 67 (1902).

There was no statute governing jury challenges. “An Act Setting Forth General Priviledges,” 13 Oct. 1692, 1 A&R 40, had guaranteed the accused “his reasonable challenges”; but the Privy Council disallowed the Act, 22 Aug. 1695. In England, the accused in any case but treason could challenge twenty jurors peremptorily. See 1 Stephen, History of Criminal Law 302.

Hutchinson's note on this phase of the trial is instructive:

“In general, in criminal trials, the Courts, in Massachusetts bay, had observed the rules of the Common Law. In trials for treason, a peremptory challenge of 35, and, in murder, of 20, had always been allowed, and a challenge of any number besides, for cause. The Juries were regulated by the Province Law, and the practice of the Courts had been, to order about 30 persons, sometimes a few more, to be returned to serve the whole term, and out of these two Juries were formed at the beginning of the Court, and the super numeraries were dismissed. In a case of treason, of which none ever hapned in my memory, a greater number than the whole might be challenged, and in murder, all but four in which cases, ordinarily, a new Venire must have gone to the Towns in the County, as the Court thought proper; but this has not often been urged, and generally, talesmen had been called by the Sheriff.” C. B. Mayo, ed., “Additions to Hutchinson's History” 32.

Duncombe, Trials Per Pais 585, treats of returns. The significance is not readily apparent. Page 85, however, discusses the tales, the bystanders added to the panel to supply a deficiency. See Black, Law Dictionary . Paine uses the sign @ here as elsewhere to indicate a refuting argument.