1. To object or except to; to prefer objections to a person, right, or instrument; to formally call into question the capability of a person for a particular function, or the existence of a right claimed, or the sufficiency or validity of an Instrument 2. As a noun, the word signifies the objection or exception so advanced. 3. An exception taken against legal documents, as a declaration, count, or writ But this use of the word is now obsolescent 4. An exception or objection preferred against a person who presents himself at the polls as a voter, in order that his right to cast a ballot may be inquired into. 5. An objection or exception to the personal qualification of a judge or magistrate about to preside at the trial of a cause; as on account of personal interest, his having been of counsel, bias, etc. 6. An exception or objection taken to the jurors summoned and returned for the trial of a cause, either individually, (to the polls,) or collectively, (to the array.) People v. Travers, 88 Cal. 233, 28 Pac. 88; People v. Fitsparrlck, 1 N. Y. Cr. R. 425. AT COMMON LAW. The causes for principal challenges fall under four heads: (1) Propter honoris respectum. On account of respect for the party’s social rank. (2) Propter defectum. On account of some legal disqualification, such as infancy or alienage. (3) Propter affectum. On account of partiality; that is, either expressed or implied bias or prejudice. (4) Proprietor delictum. On account of crime; that is, disqualification arising from the conviction of an infamous crime. Challenge for cause. A challenge to a juror for which some cause or reason is alleged. Termes de la Ley; 4 Bl. Comm. 353. Thus distinguished from a peremptory challenge. Turner v. State, 114 Ga. 421. 40 S. E. 308; Cr. Code N. Y. 1903,1 374. Challenge propter affectum. A challenge interposed on account of an ascertained or suspected bias or partiality, and which may be either a principal challenge or a challenge to the favor. Harrisburg Bank v. Forster, 8 Watts (Pa.) 300; State v. Sawtelle. 66 N. H. 488, 32 Atl. 831; Jewell v. Jewell, 84 Me. 304, 24 Atl. 858. 18 L. R. A. 473. Challenge to the array. An exception to the whole panel in which the jury are arrayed, or set in order by the sheriff in his return, upon account of partiality, or some default in the sheriff, coroner, or other officer who arrayed the panel or made the return. 3 Bl. Comm. 359; Co. litt 155b; Moore v. Guano Co.. 130 N. C. 229, 41 S. B. 293; Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272. 34 S. E. 579; Durrah v. State. 44 Miss. 789. Challenge to the favor. Is where the party has no principal challenge, but objects only some probable circumstances of suspicion, as acquaintance, and the like, the validity of which.must be left to the determination of triors, whose office it is to decide whether the juror be favorable or unfavorable. 8 Bl. Comm. 363 ; 4 Bl. Comm. 853; Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272, 34 S. E.