Preference. A payment to one creditor which will or, possibly, may give him an advantage over others.1 In the absence of a bankrupt law, a failing debtor may prefer one creditor to another by a deed, a judgment, or other means, except, in some States, by an assignment in trust. The effect may be to delay a creditor not preferred, in fact to prevent his obtaining payment at all; but if the honest intent was to pay the preferred debt, the transaction is not invalidated by the statute of 13 Elizabeth. That statute is aimed at intended fraud, - at transfers of property or preferences which are not bona fide, but collusive arrangements " to delay, hinder, or defraud" particular creditors.2 Being with child. Existing at the time of marriage by another than the husband, is ground for divorce, provided the husband was without knowledge of the woman's condi. tion, either from her confession or appearance.s 1 [Re Hapgood, 2 Low. 202 (1873), Lowell, J. 2 York County Bank v. Carter, 38 Pa. 453 (1861), Strong, J.; Worman v. Wolfersberger, 19 id. 61 (1852); Smith v. Craft, 11 Biss. 347 (1852); Clarke v. White, 12 Pet. 200 (1836); Lucas v. Claflin, 76 Va. 276-79 (1882), cases; Tootle v. Coldwell, 30 Kan. 134 (1883), cases; Jewett v. Noteware, 30 Hun, 194 (1883), cases; Sartwell v. North, 144 Mass. 192-95 (1887), cases; 48 Ala. 376; 10 Cal. 277; 19 id. 46; 4 Del. Ch. 536; 4 B. Mon. 296; 13 R. I. 463; Bump, Fraud. Conv. 220, cases. 3 Brown v. Jefferson County Bank, 19 Blatch. 316-17 (1881), Blatchford, J.; Wilson v. City Bank of St. Paul, 17 Wall. 483-87 (1873), Miller, J.; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 434 (1887), cases. 4 Campbell v. Colorado Coal & Iron Co., 9 Col. 64-65 (1885), cases. As to assignments with preferences, see Woonsocket Rubber Co. v. Falley, 30 F. R. 808, 811-12 (1887), cases; Weil v. Polack, ib. 813 (1887), cases. 5 See Hoffman v. Hoffman, 30 Pa. 417, 421 (1858); Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 92-106 (1859), cases; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 3 Allen, 609 (1862); Leavitt v. Leavitt, 13 Mich. 452 (1865); Foss v. Foss, 12 Allen, 26 (1866); Crehore v. Crehore, 99 Mass. 330 (1867); Hedden v. Hedden, 21 N. J. E. 61 (1870); Farrv. Farr, 2 McArthur, 35 (1875); Allen's Appeal, 99 Pa. 196 (1882); State v. Shoemaker, 62 Iowa, 344 (1884); Sissung v. Sissung, Sup. Ct. Mich. (1887), cases; 18 Cent. Law J. 115-16 cence.2 A man cannot be "prejudiced" against another without being "biased" against him; but he may be biased without being prejudiced.2 Implies nearly the same thing as opinion; a prejudgment of the case, and not necessarily enmity or ill-will against a party. A statute excluding as a juror a person who has "formed or expressed an opinion, or is insensible of any bias or prejudice," intends to exclude any person who has made up his mind, or formed a judgment in advance. Yet, the opinion or judgment must be something more than a vague impression, formed from casual conversations with others, or from reading imperfect newspaper reports. The opinion must be upon the merits of the question, and be such as would be likely to bias or prevent a candid judgment, upon a full hearing of the evidence. If one has formed what in some sense might be called an opinion, but which yet falls short of exciting any bias or prejudice, he may consistently discharge his duty as a juror. The right to a trial by an impartial jury does not mean that the jurors must have no prejudice or opinion as to the policy of enforcing the laws. See further BIAS; IMPARTIAL, 1; OΟΡΙΝΙΟΝ, 2. The "prejudice" in the mind of a judge which will afford ground for a change of venue refers to an opinion in regard to the case, formed beforehand, without examination, or a prepossession; not, an opinion on the questions of law involved; prejudice against the party personally. Without prejudice. That what is said or done is not (1) to be construed as an admission of liability, or (2) to affect the rights (1884), cases; 1 Bish. Mar. & D. §§ 179-91, cases; 44 Am. R. 112, cases. 1 Eckhardt v. People, 83 N. Y. 464 (1881). 2 Willis v. State, 12 Ga. 448-50 (1853), Nisbet, J. 3 Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 297 (1850), Shaw, C. J. United States v. Noelke, 17 Blatch. 562-63 (1880), cases, Choate, J.; 2 McCrary, 257. * Hungerford v. Cushing, 2 Wis. *405 (1853), Whiton, Chief Justice. • Wheeler v. Lawson, 57 Wis. 402 (1883). (51)