44) Technically, two hundredors were required to sit on juries, (45) but the requirement was not strictly enforced at this time and was eliminated a few decades later.
His observation about the impossibility of using another's eyes or ears appears in the paragraph that separates his discussion of the hundredors from his remarks about the "absurd[ity]" of punishing jurors when the judge is unaware of the facts.
83) In explicating the decision, which he quoted at length, Hawles briefly revisited the vicinage argument ("`To what end must Hundredors be of the Jury, whom the Law supposeth to have nearer knowledge of the Fact than those of the Vicinage in general?
Patrick Henry, citing the "immemorial practice of [our] British ancestors" under which "a number of hundredors were required on a jury," insisted on the criminal defendant's right to "an impartial jury of the vicinage, acquainted with his character and the circumstances of fact.
6, [section] 5 (1585) (reducing the requisite number of hundredors from six to two in trials of personal actions).
Oldham notes that throughout the seventeenth century, "there were some limitations on challenges for default of hundredors.