CHAPTER V.

THE BENCH AND BAR.

ON the 16th of August, 1683, Penn wrote to a committee of the Free Society of Traders, giving them a general description of the province, with some account of the progress made toward organizing a government. In this letter he wrote: "Courts of justice are established in every county with proper officers, as justices, sheriffs, clerks, constables, etc., which courts are held every two months. But to prevent lawsuits there are three peacemakers chosen by every court, in the nature of common arbitrators, to hear and end differences betwixt man and man. And spring and fall there is an orphans’ court in each county to inspect and regulate the affairs of orphans and widows."

These courts formed an important part of the governmental machinery of the new province, and were devised for the "well government of the said counties," not less than for the dispensing of justice and equity to litigants. The powers conferred upon them were comprehensive, and beside their regular judicial functions included the police legislation for the county as well as its administrative authority. They laid out cartways to the public roads, superintended the erection of bridges, and maintained the highways; made orders for building houses of correction, and, when specially authorized, superintended the construction of the public buildings; organized townships, cared for the poor, appointed viewers of partition fences; recommended for tavern licenses, and subsequently granted and suppressed such licenses; and set prices on liquors and the provender of horses, etc. It is probable that their form had been substantially settled in the mind of the proprietor before he left England, and no feature of the "divine experiment" more clearly exhibits the careful preparation Penn made for the new duties devolved upon him. He was familiar with the practice of the Upland court, and with the demands to be met in the new province. He appears to have been equally familiar with the London courts, or rather to have been aided by some one possessed of such knowledge, and the county courts were evidently fashioned after an intelligent study of both the English and colonial systems of jurisprudence. They were thus practically transferred from England, and yet were characterized by such departures from their prototype as to show a careful adaptation to the demands of the crude society in which they were erected.

Provision for these courts, as well as for a higher judiciary, was made in the original "Frame," and again in the amended form of this instrument adopted on the 2d of April, 1683, but no mention of details is made in either. By the sixteenth article of the amended document, under which they were established, it is provided "that from and after the death of this present governour, the provinciall council shall, together with the succeeding governour, erect, from time to time, standing courts of justice in such place and number as they shall judge convenient for the good government of the said province and territories thereof." The constitution of the judiciary was thus left to the judgment of the proprietor unrestricted save by the limitations of the royal charter. Some regulation of the procedure and jurisdiction, however, is found in the laws proposed by the proprietor, and as enacted in 1683, provided,

That in all courts all persons, of all persuasions may freely appear in their own way, and according to their own manner, and there personally plead their own Cases themselves, or if unable, by their friends; And that the first proces shall be the Exhibition of the Complaint, fourteen days before the tryal: And that the Defendant may be prepared for his Defense, hee or shee shall be summoned no Less than ten days before, and a Copy of the Complaint Delivered him, or her, at his or her dwelling house, to answer unto; But before the Complaint of any person shall be received, hee or shee, shall Solemnly Declare in open Court, that hee or shee believeth in his or her Conscience, that his or her caus is just; And if the party complained against shall notwithstanding refuse to appear, The Plaintiff shall have Judgement against the Defendant, by default.

Whereas great Respect is due from all persons, and ought always to be yeelded in Courts of Justice, whois institution is the peace and benefit of the publick, And that such gravity, and reverence which manifests the authority of a Court, may at all times appear; These following Rules shall be observed in the holding thereof: By the King’s authority and in the name of the Proprietary and Governour, silence is commanded, Let the Cryer make proclamation, and say, O yes, O yes, O yes, Silence is commanded in the Court, while the justices are sitting, upon pain of imprisonment. After silence is Commanded, The cryer shall make a proclamation saying; All manner of persons that have anything to doe, at this Court, Draw Nigh and give your attendance, and if any person shall have any Complaint to enter, or suit to prosecute, Let them Draw near, and they shall be heard; when Silence is thus commanded and proclamation made, Upon calling the Docket, The cryer shall call, A.B., plaintiff come forth and prosecute thy suit against C.D., or else thou wilt be Non-suited; The plaintiff appearing, The cryer shall call for the Defendant, C.D., come forth and save thee and thy Bail, or else judgment will pass against thee.

That in all Causes, Capital, and Criminal, the freemen of the County shall be summoned by the Sheriffs, and the names of the freemen shall be writ in small pieces of paper, and put into a hat and shaken; forty-eight of whom shall be drawn by a Child, and those so drawn shall stand for the Sheriff’s Returns; And the first twelve, not reasonably excepted against, shall stand and serve for the tryal.

That all actions of debt, Accompt. or Slander, and all actions of Trespass, shall be henceforth first tryed by there respective County Court, where the Cause of action did arise. And if any person shall think himself aggrieved with the Judgement of the County Court, That then, such person may Appeal to have the same tryed before the Governour and Council; Provided always that the same he above twelve lbs.* And that the person appealing, do put in good and sufficient Security, to pay all Costs and Damages, if hee shall be cast, as also to pay the Cost and Charges of the first Suit.

That all, persons shall be Bailable by sufficient Sureties, unless for Capital Offences, where the proof is evident or the presumption great; And every quarter of a year, there shall be a gaol Delivery in every County, where imprisonment is not the punishment.

In 1684, a law was passed requiring the county court to hold monthly and quarterly sessions, and by the same act it was provided that "each quarter sessions be as well a court of equity as law, concerning any judgment given in cases by law capable of trial in the respective county sessions and courts." In the following year, however, the sessions of the court were changed to quarterly "and oftener, if occasion be." In 1693 the monthly sessions were again restored, but in 1701 they were again abolished.

In 1684 the provincial court was established. This was composed of five judges, appointed by the governor, any three of whom were constituted a quorum and required to sit twice a year in Philadelphia. It was also required that at least two of them should go the circuit of the counties every spring and autumn, and "whether fixt or circular" should have the hearing and determining of all appeals from the inferior courts; "also, all trials of titles of lands, and all causes as well criminal as civil, both in law and equity, not determinable by the respective county courts." The "inconvenience, trouble and expense" of travelling the circuit, however, led to a change in this respect in the following year, and the county courts were given jurisdiction in "all trials of titles of lands, all actions of a debt, account or slander, actions personal, and all actions civil or criminal whatsoever, excepting treason, murder, manslaughter, and other heinous and enormous crimes." Appeals were to be determined by three judges or any two of them, "speciallie to be commissionated by the Governor and Council." This law continued in force until l690, when the final jurisdiction of the inferior courts was limited to causes where the judgment was under ten pounds, and the provincial court of five judges was restored. When the government was seized by the crown in 1693, the laws of the province were abrogated by the royal letters-patent to Governor Fletcher, but the status of the courts was immediately restored by a new enactment in the same year, and continued unchanged until the general act of 1701, in the personal administration of the proprietor.

The orphans’ court appears to have been subject to less change than other courts. In 1682 it was provided "that The justices of each respective county court shall sit twice every year, to inspect and take care of the estates, usage, and employment of orphans, which shall be called The Orphans’ Court, and sit the first third day of ye week, in the first and eighth month, yearly; that care may be taken for those, that are not able to take care for themselves." And this remained unchanged among the early vicissitudes of the province until the enactment of the general law.

Provision for the collection of small debts was also made by the first assembly at Philadelphia, and the act was based upon the consideration of "speedy justice to the poor." Under this law all matters of debts or dues under forty shillings were to be heard and determined by any two justices of the peace in the county where the cause arose. The judgment found was reported by the justices to the next county court, when it was "recorded by the clark" and was "as good, and binding, if the Court approve the same." In 1690 the jurisdiction in such cases was given to a single justice, and it was added, "in case the party complained against as aforesaid is about to depart the province or territories, and the magistrate be satisfied thereof, the defendant shall be held obliged either to give security for the sum adjudged or bail to abide by and answer what shall be determined by the next county court respectively therein." This act remained in force until after the revolution.

In 1701 a general act "for the better and more orderly establishment and regulation of the courts of justice" superseded all other acts of this character. Prior to this law the jurisdiction and practice of the various courts were ill defined and uncertain, but this act was quite explicit in specifying the jurisdiction of the different courts, regulating the particular mode of procedure and the legal forms to be employed in the various writs and instruments. Under this act county courts were held four times a year, that for Bucks beginning on Wednesday in the second week of March, June, September, and December of each year. A "competent number" of justices were appointed by the governor, any three of whom were constituted a quorum, and empowered and authorized—

To Deliver the Gaoles, award process, and Hold all manner of please of the Crown, or Criminall Causes, in the Respective Counties wherein they shall be commissionated, (excepting Treason, Murder, Manslaughter, Rape, Sodomy, Buggery, Burglary, and burning of houses, which the provinciall Judges hereafter mention’d are hereby authorized to hear and Determine;) and shall award process, call speciall courts, hold please, and hear and Determine all actions, suits and causes, civill, personall, Reall and mixt, observing as near as may be, Respecting the Infancy of this Government and capacity of the people, the methods and practice of the King’s court of common pleas in England, having regard to the Regular process and proceedings of the former county courts, always keeping to Brevity, plainness, and verity, in all Declarations and pleas, and avoiding all Fictions and Colour in pleadings.

To hear and decree all such matters and causes of equity as shall come before them, in the said courts. Wherein the proceedings shall be by Bill and answer, with such other pleadings as are Necessary in chancery courts, and propper in these parts, with power also, for the said justices to force obedience to their Decree in Equity, by Imprisonment, or Sequestration of Lands, as the case may Require.

To Doe and execute, to all things relating to the Duty and Office of justices of the peace, according to the laws of this Government; with power to hold and keep private sessions as often as they see occasion.

And, calling to their assistance the Register Generall or his Deputy for the Time being, in Each county of this Province and Territories . . . . to hold and keep the said Orphans’ courts, after the business of the county court in Spring and Fall is over, or as often as they shall see occasion in the same places where the respective county courts are held from time to time.

On February 7, 1705, this act was repealed by the queen’s council, leaving the province without any legally established judiciary. In the attempt to replace the repealed law a long and bitter controversy arose between Governor Evans and the assembly, and pending this the courts were twice adjourned by the governor. On the 22d of February, 1707, however, by an ordinance which the governor issued under color of authority found in Penn’s charter, the courts of justice were temporarily re-established, By this instrument the justices were authorized to hold "General Sessions of the Peace and Gaol Delivery;" "to hold and keep a court of record, in every county, which shall be called and styled the County Court of Common Pleas, and shall be holden four times in every year, at the places where the said quarter sessions of the peace shall be respectively kept as aforesaid;" and a court of equity "four times a year at the respective places, and near the said times as the said courts of common pleas are held in every county of this province," and it was further provided that the prothonotary of the common pleas should be the register of the said court of equity in every county. In 1708 Gookin succeeded Evans, and this ordinance was renewed by the new governor. Two years later the assembly succeeded in framing a bill for establishing courts of judicature which became a law on the 28th of February. This was the most elaborate and most complete in all its details of the laws hitherto enacted upon the subject, but it is chiefly noticeable in relation to the local courts in the extent of jurisdiction granted to the court of quarter sessions. By its provisions the justices of this court were empowered to hear and determine all charges of felony, crimes, and offences whatsoever save "treasons, murders, and such other crimes as shall he by the laws of this province be made felongs of death," and "to minister common justice, and to do, exercise, hear, determine and execute all things within the sd respective counties and limits of their commissions and authoritys, as near as conveniently may be to the laws of Great Britain and according to the laws of this province, as fully and effectually as any justice of assize, justice of oyer and terminer or of gaol delivery or justices of the peace, may or can do."

This law, though prepared with great labor and ability, was destined to find little favor with the English court. As an eminent legal writer has remarked:
     "Whoever the lawyers were, they seemed to have been inclined to make a Pennsylvania system of jurisprudence, rather than to introduce the English," but while this may have been a creditable achievement in the judgment of the framers of the bill and their posterity, it was not likely to meet the approval of those who viewed any departure from the standards of the home government with alarm. Governor Evans voiced their objections, when, in the heated discussion on this subject in his administration, he declared, "that their aim was to reverse the method of government according to our English constitution, and establish one more resembling a republic in its stead." The act was accordingly repealed by the queen’s council, on February 20, 1713. When this was known in the province Governor Gookin resorted to the same expedient adopted by his predecessor and maintained the courts by an ordinance until the several acts of 1715 were passed. A number of changes were incorporated in the legislation to supply the repealed judiciary act. The powers of the magistrates were specified in a distinct bill; the clauses for the general court of quarter sessions and for the county court of common pleas were separately enacted; and original jurisdiction of all matters of equity was given to the supreme court. The constitution of the inferior courts was not materially different from those established by the repealed law, but a significant clause in the bill for a county court of common pleas indicates the gradual change that was being effected in the practice. This provides "that there may be a competent number of persons, of honest disposition and learned in the law, admitted by the justices of the said respective courts, to practise as attorneys there, who shall behave themselves justly and faithfully in their practise; and if they misbehave themselves therein, they shall suffer such penalties and suspensions as attorneys-at-law in Great Britain are liable in such cases." Attorneys thus admitted were permitted to practice in all the courts of the province without further license, but each was required to file his warrant of attorney with the prothonotary in each cause.

The judiciary laws were again disapproved by the crown in 1719 and repealed. In this emergency Governor Keith issued special commissions to the justices in the several counties authorizing them to hold the courts as formerly, and to proceed "according to the course of common law and the law of this province." This arrangement sufficed to continue the "current of justice" until 1722, when the governor suggested that a general ordinance would more effectually and regularly establish the constitution of the several courts of judicature. The assembly, strongly opposed to this method, at once took alarm, and in four days prepared a bill for the purpose, which became a law two days later. This was the first and only law for establishing courts of judicature that was not repealed by the crown, but it continued only till 1727, when a case arising in the supreme court led the assembly to repeal it, and replace it by an act which provided that no original process should be issued out of the supreme court in civil causes. This gave offense to a certain collector of the crown who had been the plaintiff in the case which was the moving cause of the assembly’s action, and effort was made to incorporate an amendment to the law which should except actions in which the crown was concerned from the sweeping provision mentioned. This effort did not avail, and it appears probable that the offended collector had influence enough in 1731 to secure its repeal by the king. This action of the crown again left the province without legally established courts, and the act of 1722, not having been repealed by the home government, was accordingly reenacted to meet the emergency and continued in force, with some amendment, until the adoption of the state constitution.

This act provided for each county a court "stiled the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace and Gaol Delivery," to be held four times a year for a period not exceeding two days at each session in Bucks and Chester counties, and a court "stiled and called The County Court of Common Pleas." The constitution, jurisdiction and procedure of these courts were unchanged by the new act, and so continued until 1759, when separate justices were provided to hold the court of common pleas. The latter act required that "five persons of the best discretion, capacity, judgment, and integrity" should be commissioned in each county to hold and keep "the court of common pleas." These persons were termed judges, held their positions quain diu se bene gesserint, and were authorized and directed to hold the orphans’ court. Justices of the quarter sessions were prohibited from holding or executing the office of judge of common pleas "at the same time he shall be justice of the quarter sessions."

By the repeal of the judiciary act of 1701, the orphans’ court was suspended and was not restored until after the lapse of some eight years. Laws still existing directed matters of importance to be done by this court, and much of the business properly transacted by it was either left unaccomplished or done at great inconvenience by other courts. In 1713, therefore, an act was passed reestablishing the orphans’ court, elaborating its procedure, and providing for the security of its trusts. As then erected, this court continued substantially unchanged until the adoption of the state constitution.

In 1701 the original provincial court of 1684 was restored, but in Evans’s ordinance of 1707 its title was changed to the "Supream or Provincial Court of Pennsilvania." It was required ta hold two sessions in every county each year, and was composed of three judges, one of whom was distinguished as chief-justice. In 1710 "provincial" was dropped from its title, the number of judges was increased to four, one of whom was distinguished as before, and its sessions continued unchanged. In Gookin’s ordinance of 1714, the number of judges was changed to three again, but was otherwise unchanged. In the act of 1715 the number of judges was increased to four, who were required to hold two sessions in Philadelphia, but none elsewhere. In 1720 Keith commissioned four judges without the distinction of chief-justice, two of whom were constituted a quorum to act as supreme court. At least two of them were required "at certain days" to meet at the court-houses in the respective counties.

In 1715 it was provided that matters of equity should begin in the higher court, which was then called the "Supreme Court of Law and Equity," but in 1720 Governor Keith, after consulting with gentlemen learned in the law, addressed the assembly, expressing himself satisfied "that no representative body in any of his Majesty’s colonies is invested with power to erect such a court, or that the office of chancellor can be lawfully executed by any person whatsoever, except him who by virtue of the great seal of England may he understood to act as the King’s representative in the place." The assembly apparently conceded the correctness of this view, and "for the present" expressed the desire that the governor, with the assistance of such of the council as he should see fit, should "open and hold a court of equity for the province." On the 10th of August, 1720, the governor issued his proclamation giving place and date for holding a court of chancery, which he continued until succeeded by Patrick Gordon as governor. The new official asked the advice of his council whether he should assume the position of chancellor left vacant by Keith’s retirement, and being assured by this body that he might lawfully do so, at once qualified for the position. (Col. Rec. vol. iii., p. 281.) On January 7, 1736, the counties of Bucks, Philadelphia, and Chester presented a petition complaining that the court of chancery was a violation of the charter of privileges, and the assembly demanded of the governor information how the court was constituted. In response, Gordon sent copies of the proceedings of 1720, accompanied with an elaborate vindication of the court prepared by the council. Ten days later, however, the assembly resolved "that the court of chancery as then established was contrary to the charter of privileges." An angry reply from the council, and a well-considered rejoinder by the assembly, seems to have ended the controversy at this time. A few months later Governor Gordon died, and Logan, who succeeded him, acquiescing in the views of the assembly, the court of chancery, after an existence of sixteen years, came to an end.

In 1722 the original "supreme" court was restored with three judges, one of whom was distinguished by the title of chief-justice. It was required that upon any issue joined in this court, trial should be had "in the county whence the cause was removed," and any two of the judges were therefore "empowered and required, if occasion require, to go the circuit twice in every year." In 1727 the supreme court was restored as constituted in 1722, but it was required to hold only two sessions a year, and those to he held only in Philadelphia. In 1731 the bill of 1722 was re-enacted, and in 1759 the tenure of the supreme judges was made for good behavior. Eight years later the number of judges was increased to four, who were enjoined, "if occasion require, to go the circuit twice in every year."

By the ordinance of Evans in 1707, the act of 1710, and the ordinance of Gookin in 1714, it was provided that "speciall commissioners of Oyer & Terminer & Gaol Delivery may be Granted unto any the Respective Countys of this Province, for the hearing, trying, & Determining of all High & Capitall Offences, where the life of any person may or shall be brought in question." Subsequently these powers were conferred upon the supreme court, and remained unchanged under the provincial regime.**

In 1701 appeals were allowed upon "any decree or sentence," made or given either in equity or upon summary proceedings, by the justices of the inferior courts. Such appeals were required to be directed to the governor, who gave notice of them to the judges of the provincial court. In 1710 appeals were directed to the supreme court, but were to be allowed only when "the debt, damages or things demanded" exceeded the sum of ten pounds. In 1759 it was provided that where the sum did not exceed twenty pounds, "lawful money of Pennsylvania," if the case was removed by the plaintiff and a verdict was granted in his favor, he should not recover any costs of suit; if the verdict was given against him he was required to pay "double-costs" of suit to the defendant. When the cause was removed by the defendant, he was required to pay double-costs to the plaintiff. In 1767 the amount was raised to fifty pounds, with the same conditions as before, save that the plaintiff was in no case subject to the penalty of paying any costs to the defendant.

In the earlier times there were no certain rules established for appeals to the crown. The first definite reference to the subject is found in the commission of Governor Fletcher, where appeals to the privy council are provided for in cases when the matter of difference exceeded the value of three hundred pounds. The laws of 1701 and 1710 provided for such appeals, but with no limitations. In 1715 the procedure in such cases was specified, but no limitation was expressed, and the practice under this law proved very unsatisfactory. By a communication from the king in 1726, it appears that the royal "orders for reversing the orders and decrees appealed from and for making restitution of the estates or effects which had been so levied in execution, had been rendered ineffectual, and the appellant left without redress." The king therefore directed that execution be delayed until the determination of the appeal was known. In 1767 it was provided that no appeal to the crown should be allowed "in any action or suit wherein a general verdict shall be given, or in any other case, but where there shall be a demurrer to evidence, or bill of exceptions, or where a writ of error may legally be brought."

The first court of Bucks county was probably constituted in April, 1683, but it does not appear to have entered upon its duties until March of the following year. It was composed of five justices, none of whom had any practical knowledge of the administration of the law in England or in the province. It does not appear that such qualification presented itself to the mind of Penn as essential for the proper discharge of the duties imposed upon the members of the court. Imbued with the idea of extending the reign of peace and good-will to all his people, he seems to have thought it sufficient that the judges of the simple laws of the province should be men of honest intentions, and calm, deliberative judgment. Technicalities and the encouragers of such difficulties were evaded or ignored, and the early court was endowed with a kind of paternal authority which sufficed for the purposes of the community for years. As the character of the community changed, the character of the court changed with it, and the history of the early jurisprudence of Pennsylvania affords ample confirmation of the wisdom of the proprietor and his advisers.

The reason assigned for the erection of the orphans’ court— "that care may be taken for those that are not able to care for themselves"— was an apparently active principle in the constitution of the whole original judiciary. Every practicable means seems to have been adopted to prevent unnecessary litigation, and the courts apparently went beyond the letter of the law to effect this object. In 1683 it was provided that if any one was convicted as "a common barrator," vexing the community with unjust and frequent suits, the court was authorized to reject his cause and punish him for his "barratry" by fine or imprisonment. At the same time it was also provided "that in every precinct three persons shall be yearly chosen as common peacemakers in that precinct." To make their arbitrations valid it was required that the parties differing should sign a submission of the dispute to the peacemakers, and this reference and submission "being satisfied by the county court," the judgment rendered under its authority became "as conclusive as a sentence given by the county court," and was registered in the court as other judgments were. In September, l685, the court for Bucks county appointed Joshua Hoopes, Henry Paxson, and Jonathan Scaife to act in this capacity for the ensuing year. This law was in force until it was abrogated by the crown in 1693, but no further appointments under it have been discovered in the records. In 1696, however, the court found other means to reach the same end. On the 22d of June, "the petition of Isaac Burges, in relation to a debt due him from his brother, Samuel Burges, was read, and the court appointed Joseph Kirkbride to speak to said Samuel Burges, and advise him to refer the matter in difference to indifferent men to be by them chosen, but if he shall refuse the said advice that then William Biles and Richard Hough do take what further care is fit to accommodate the matter in difference as may be found most expedient and expeditious."

Originally there was no county court of common pleas, and the business peculiar to that court was done by the justices of the court of quarter sessions. There actions between private individuals were brought and tried, and upon its records appear many entries of actions of ejectment, debt, assumpsit, and trespass. No difficulty was found in the manner of proceeding, but the pleadings, generally entered at length, sometimes show a good deal of familiarity with legal forms. A court of common pleas was established by the ordinance of Governor Evans in 1707, but an entry*** in the court records indicates that the English division of causes was not unknown to the justices and was perhaps indirectly observed by them some time before. As no further indication is found to confirm this suggestion, however, the entry may probably be considered as an unauthorized expression of the clerk’s individual opinion. There is a hiatus in the court record from December 12, 1705, to June 8, 1708, to be accounted for by the suspension of the courts during this period, but from the latter date the records of the courts of quarter sessions and common pleas were kept separately, though for some time in the same book. The records of the latter court are of the briefest character, and after about 1730 cannot be traced continuously for any considerable period. They afford little of historical or curious interest, and unfortunately do not give the names of the judges appointed under the law of 1759.

In examining the records of the court of quarter sessions the simple forms employed and the trivial sums involved in the early cases will challenge attention, but it is well to bear in mind that the value of money was much greater at that day than now, and that justice was "neither sold, denied, nor delayed" The first action before the court presented two complaints, one "for withholding £7 due the plaintiff," and the other "for keeping unlawful (unruly) cattle." At the same court Gilbert Wheeler brought action against Walter Pomfret, of Burlington, New Jersey, "for withholding £5," and to cover this sum with costs the sheriff levied on "one mare, one horse, one yearling colt," which were subsequently appraised at nine pounds and ten shillings.

Under date of "29th of 11/mo., 1684," the record exhibits an action brought by Samuel Overton for the sum of seven pounds due him for professional services. It appears that Joseph Chorley, "a servant of John Clows," was shot in the leg, and the master "agreed that if the plaintiff would come and cure the sd servant, the ₅d defendant would content him." The plaintiff performed the cure, but for reasons not given, Clows declined to pay the bill presented. This fee was eventually collected, and as it was about the commercial value of the servant, it would indicate that Mr. Overton had a monopoly of the curing business. In 1692, after he had served his time as indentured servant, Chorley is found in court with a case of his own against Robert Lucas, "for damages occasioned by shooting his ox." The defendant won the verdict, and the plaintiff appealed. The jury found, however, that "they had viewed the ox, and he was so little harmed by the shot, that the said Chorley need not to have lost two days’ work for any harm the ox had received." The defendant therefore "craved the benefit of the law that when the debt or damages is pretended to be above five pounds, and it is proved under that, in such case the plaintiff shall lose his action, Whereupon the court saw no cause to grant him an appeal."

From the frequent notice in the records of the acknowledgment of deeds in open court, it appears that the practice of the Hustings court for the enrolment of deeds was followed here for years, and many of their early instruments are recorded only in the minutes of the court. This was the usual practice in the Upland court, and continued for a long time under the provincial government. When lawyers became common, the acknowledgment and delivery were generally done by the attorney of the grantor, frequently to the attorney of the grantee, and were probably regarded as equivalent to "livery of seizure." No mention of any written authority to the attorney to perform this service has been discovered in the records. In 1715 it was provided that such acknowledgment should be made before a justice of the peace.

Notwithstanding that generally "the rich were poor" in the early days of the province, poverty was made a crime after the fashion of the English laws. In 1683 it was provided in the case of persons "refusing to pay their just debts," if no estate could be found, the debtor should satisfy the debt by servitude, as the county court should order, if desired by the creditor, and this practice remained in force with some amendments and a brief interruption until 1842. At first no provision was made for the comfort and support of the imprisoned debtors, though the "gaoler" was expressly enjoined to allow them "to provide themselves bedding, food, and other necessaries." In 1730, an act was passed for the relief of insolvent debtors, and the harsh requirements of this class of legislation were materially modified. Under this act the creditor was required to pay at the jail on a certain day of the week a certain allowance for the support of the debtor, to be fixed by the court, and not to exceed three shillings a week. It was found, however, that sundry idle and ill-disposed persons very much abused their creditors, and the earlier law was revived. The provision for the maintenance of the imprisoned debtor at the expense of the creditor was retained, and, in addition, the latter was required to give security that neither the debtor nor his family should "become chargeable to the town nor county." The debtor apparently suffered under this arrangement, and in 1792 the court was required to make provision for fuel and blankets for such as could not provide for themselves, and to make an allowance for food in such cases "not exceeding seven cents per day." In 1795 the county court for Bucks county fixed the allowance at "sixpence for bread and sixpence for wood per day from the first of October until the first of May, and sixpence per day from the first of May to the last of September." In 1807 the expense was again thrown upon the creditor, and a default of three days in the payment of the fixed allowance gave the debtor the right to demand and receive his freedom.

The expense thus added to the cost of securing the imprisonment of a debtor had apparently little effect in limiting the number of "prisoners taken in execution," and the record of proceedings against this unfortunate class is very frequently found in the books and papers of Bucks county archives. In 1737 the inventory of the property which an insolvent debtor surrendered exhibited only "one grubbing hoe, one little iron pot, and one old bed." In 1752 several prisoners ask to be sold in payment of the accrued costs of their imprisonment, and another declared that he had nothing for his support and was "in a starving condition." In 1765 Robert Lawrence made "satisfaction by servitude" and was sentenced by the court to serve his twenty creditors an aggregate of seven hundred and twenty-five days. Various amendments, adopted from time to time, tended to somewhat mitigate the rigor of the insolvent laws, and one of these was a provision that where the debt was under ten pounds and the debtor was a soldier in his majesty’s service, he could be discharged on application to the justices. Robert Talbot was discharged in this way in 1756, on the application of William Scott, a sergeant in the king’s army.

The treatment of persons charged with criminal offenses, though much milder than then in vogue in England, was still exceedingly harsh when compared with the practice of the present. The adoption of the act of 1718, however, ushered in a new era in the administration of penal justice in Pennsylvania and introduced all the harshness of the English code. By this act treason, misprision of treason, murder, manslaughter, sodomy, rape, robbery, mayhem, arson, burglary, witchcraft, and concealing the birth of a bastard child were made punishable with death, and an accessory made to suffer equally with the principal. The person preferring the complaint was made prosecutor and put under bonds to pursue the matter to an issue. The defendant was required to pay the costs whether convicted or acquitted, and witnesses for the prosecution were placed under bonds, or in default of this were thrown into the debtors’ prison, where they were allowed, when witnesses for the crown, sixpence per day for their support. The more common offenses charged in the records of the early county court were unlawfully selling rum, swearing, perjury, scandal, theft, fornication and bastardy, while cases of murder, burglary, counterfeiting, and witchcraft were not unknown.

The whipping-post and stocks were prominently employed in the administration of penal justice. The latter was generally brought into requisition in the correction of drunkenness and other misdemeanors, but the lash was in frequent use and formed a part of a large proportion of the punishment inflicted by the county court, apparently without regard to sex. In 1685 it was charged against Joseph Lunn that he "did swear several oaths." He was convicted and sentenced to "pay for the three oaths fifteen shillings or suffer fifteen days’ imprisonment in the house of correction at hard labor, and be fed on bread and water." Lunn was a servant of Derrick Clawson, who struck him and caused him to swear. Clawson was accordingly brought to answer for the assault, and the sentences were satisfied by the master paying the fines and costs of both, and the servant giving fifteen days’ labor after the expiration of his term. The penalty for swearing seems to have been five shillings or five days’ labor for each oath, but even this does not seem to have checked the habit entirely, as the frequent charges of this character sufficiently prove. Perjury was considered less heinous, as Philip Conway was fined two shillings and sixpence, in 1689, and Elizabeth Taylor was "whipped three lashes upon her bare back" in 1742 for this offense.

Public and private reputations were carefully guarded. One of the laws passed in 1683 provided "that if any person shall at any time hereafter speak in derogation of the sentence or judgment of any court, he or she shall be fined for such offence, at the discretion of that or the next court or session." This act was strictly enforced, and the frequent occasions on which it was brought into operation and the character of expressions to which exception was taken indicate a marked disposition to dissent from the wisdom of the court’s decisions and a great degree of sensitiveness on the part of the justices. In the case of private individuals the court was equally prompt and severe. In 1686 Randolph Smallwood was indicted, convicted, and fined ten pounds for the governor and ten pounds damages to Ralph Milner for scandalizing the latter’s wife, and was further bound to his good behavior. A similar case introduces the only charge of witchcraft discovered in the records of Bucks county. This occurred in 1760 when Thomas King was presented for defaming Joan, the wife of Francis Searle. He pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury. "Hugh Marshall attested, said that in or about the third month last he heard Thomas King say there was a witch near by: being asked who it was he said he suspected Francis Searle’s wife, for she was an ugly, ill-favored woman, and he did believe her to be one. Robert Marsh attested, said that he heard Thomas King say there was a witch hard by." What defense was set up is not recorded, but it did not serve to save the prisoner, for the jury found him guilty and the court sentenced him to pay the costs and be bound to keep the peace, and to appear at the next court.

The punishment of nearly every conviction of theft, fornication and bastardy, until about 1740, included whipping. In the first named cases it was generally required of the offender to restore fourfold, and to wear a Roman T, of varying color, in full view upon his clothing, in addition to the whipping administered. In 1702 Joseph Ball was indicted for entering the house of Joseph Plumley and "stealing several pieces of money called pieces of eight, and Royals or bitts." He pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to receive seven lashes on his bare back, and wear a Roman T on his left arm. In 1713 the sentence in a case of theft was "to be whipt ten lashes and wear a Roman T on the outside of his upper garment in full view for six months." Two years later, fifteen lashes were administered, and a letter "of red color" required to be worn for six months. White and yellow colors are also noted, this characteristic probably varying with the taste of the court. In 1732 a woman was punished for theft with "ten lashes upon her bare back at the public post" only. Some eight or ten years later corporal punishment became less frequent, and fines were imposed instead. The judgment is sometimes that the defendant, "according to his election do pay," etc., or "he choosing to pay the fine as imposed by law for his offense," etc.

Charges of fornication and bastardy are frequently found in the records covering the period prior to the revolution, and scarcely less so down to the end of the first quarter of the present century. These constitute a majority of the criminal cases tried before the early county court, but it should be added that a large proportion were brought against indentured servants. The first case on record in Bucks county was in 1685, when the man was whipped twenty lashes on his bare back, well laid on, enjoined to marry the woman, and make good to his master the damage he had sustained by this thing. The woman received ten lashes. In 1694, persons not servants were fined three pounds each, though the deputy-governor subsequently released the woman from payment. In 1727 two servants pleaded guilty to a similar charge. The man was given the usual twenty lashes at the public post. The woman was sentenced to the same, but this punishment was suspended. She was compelled, however, to serve her master for one year after the expiration of her term of service, and the child was bound out. This was the usual penalty inflicted upon the woman.

Counterfeiting of both paper and metal currency was much more frequent than at present, and after the enactment of the law of 1718, the penalty was cruel to the extent of barbarism. Two cases were tried in the March session of 1785 at Newtown. Simon Haney was charged with passing a spurious "Spanish milled dollar," which was then part of the current coin of the state. To this he pleaded guilty, and was sentenced by the court "To stand in the pillory for the space of one hour; both his ears be cut off and nailed to the pillory; be publicly whipped on his bare back with twenty-one lashes well laid on; pay one hundred pounds, one-half to the state, the other half to the discoverer; to pay the costs and stand committed till the sentence be complied with." Joseph Fonflea, a physician, and his confederate, was convicted and similarly sentenced.

But two cases of murder appear upon the records before the revolution. In the minutes of the provincial council under date of the first of December, 1685, the following is found:

A Letter from John Otter to ye Presidt, bearing date ye 26th 9th Mo. last, was Read, Requesting that a Speciall Comission be granted for ye Tryall of David Davis the next Court, who is a Prisoner in ye County of Bucks, on suspition of killing his servant.

The Councill having Considered the same, and to ye end that Justice might be speedily dispatched, and ye Matter being approved of, they unanimously agree that a Comission be Expeditiously prepared for ye authorising & Impowring of James Harrison, Arthur Cook, Tho. Janney, Wm. Yardley, Wm. Biles, to be special Comissrs to hear and Determine all heinous and Enormous Crimes that shall be brought before them in ye County of Bucks, in a Court then to begin on ye l0th Instt, by them to be held.

Davis was a "chirurgeon," the first in the county, and the "suspition" probably arose from the death of his patient who happened also to be his servant. No mention of this case has been found in the books or papers of the county court, nor any further account in the minutes of the council, and it is probable that the suspicion was found to be groundless.

In 1692 a more serious suspicion of murder was entertained against Derrick Claasen (Clawson or Closson). On the 8th of May in this year the body of a dead man was found near the mouth of the Neshaminy. Four days later an inquest was held by John Cooke, the coroner, who came to the conclusion that it was a case of "wilful murder" committed about six weeks before. On the 3d of June the coroner’s report was "returned into" the court of quarter sessions, where a hearing was had.

Upon a due examination of things it appeared that a considerable quantity of blood on the walls and on the bed of Derrick Jonson als. Clawson, about the supposed time that the above murdered person lost his life, was discovered, and the said Derrick refused to give any account how the said blood came there; whereupon this court committs him, the said Derrick Clawson als. Jonson, into the safe custody of the sheriff until he shall be delivered by due course of law.

Derrick Jonson als. Clawson on being examined, saith he showed the blood on the wall to Edmund Lane and his brother, Claus Jonson, and to Mary Boyden; he also saith there was no blood on the bed but what was bled by a man that came to thrash for him three years ago, and that he had spoke of the blood fully as much as it was.

Coroner John Cooke saith that when he went to view the blood he perceived that it had run in several streams down the boards on the wall, which streams continued until they went behind the planks that lay on the ground floor.

Brighta, the wife of said Derrick, saith that the blood seen on the wall was discovered between day and sunrising, and that there was a sheet hanged on the outside of the bed in manner of a curtain, and that there was no blood on the bed. Being asked when they put fresh straw in the bed, she said she was not certain, but she thought about the latter end of March or beginning of April last.

At an adjourned session, held October 4, 1692, Claasen desired that he might have liberty on bail for his appearance, and the court, "whereas it was supposed in the beginning of this court that the said Derrick should have been brought to trial forthwith, but the judges (of the provincial court) believing it to be more discretional to defer the trial until the spring, to see if something further might not be discovered concerning the supposed murther, and it being the winter season, and the prison inconvenient for the season, thought good to order that bail be taken for his and his wife’s appearance at the next court of quarter sessions to be held for this county." Claus Jonson and Peter Rambo accordingly entered into bonds in the sum of fifty pounds each for the appearance of the accused and his wife.

The record of the next session is mutilated, but there is evidence that the Claasens appeared and that the recognizance was discharged. In what appear to be rough notes bound in an earlier part of the same book, some part of the subsequent proceedings are given. A regular session of the "Provincial Circular Court" was held at the court-house on the 14th day of April, 1693, by Judges Samuel Jennings and Joseph Growden. At this court the grand jury presented Derrick Claasen "for murthering of an unknown person found near the mouth of the Neshaminah creek, the 8th day of the 3rd month, 1692, being supposed to be murthered about the beginning of the 2d mo. 1692." The record proceeds:

Derrick Jonson, als. Clawson, being brought into court and the grand jury’s presentment read to him, he pleaded not guilty. He craved to have further time for his trial, he not being prepared for it, which was allowed him by the court until the next provincial circular court to be held for this county, being the king’s evidence was not so full as hereafter is expected, and the king’s attorney was not here to prosecute.

His wife, Brighta, and his sister were also indicted for aiding and assisting in the murder. Here the record ends, some leaves having apparently disapeared since the book was bound. It appears from the minutes of the provincial council, however, that on the 28th inst., "the petion of dirck Johnson, als. Clauson, setting forth that hee, with his wife and Sister, stand Committed in Close prison, upon suspition of murder, where he hath continued twelve months, without the benefit of being brought to tryall," was read, and that a commission of oyer and terminer for the trial of these cases was at once issued. No record of the trial has been discovered, but a minute of the reading before the council of a petition "of divers of the relatns, friends & neighbours of derrick Johnson, a prisoner Condemned to dye," leaves no doubt of its result. The sudden change in his conduct, demanding a speedy trial only four days after he had "craved to have further time," indicates that he had secured the services of "a friend" to take charge of his defense. The friend was probably John White, but it is doubtful if he contributed any strength to the cause of the accused, as his intemperate language was the cause of the petition being rejected.

The petition was rejected on the 26th of June, and on the 30th of July Israel Taylor, the sheriff of Bucks county, was called before the council "to give an account of the estate of Derrick Johnson, lately sentenced and executed for murdering an unknown person." There is a tradition that the execution took place at a point now called Tyburn, a name suggested by the event, but it is more than probable the place has had a lugubrious name inflicted on it for very insufficient cause. Claasen was a Swedish native of the province, one of the earliest settlers in the county of Bucks, and in 1684 was a constable here.

The early English settlers of the province were not friendly to lawyers. It was their effort to avoid technicalities by which the current of justice is so often turned awry, and the justices felt themselves unable to cope with the subtleties of the profession. Laymen sat upon the bench and administered justice, trying legal questions between individuals without the assistance of those learned in the law, and apparently doing it well. The early laws did not recognize lawyers, but the provision which permitted persons unable to plead their own cause to do so "by their friends," left a loop-hole by which these objectionable persons gained access to the courts. William Biles and others occasionally appeared for their neighbors and friends, and were noted in the records as attorneys, but it is known that they laid no claim to the title, and served only in keeping with the spirit of the law. There was no bar to the employment of a friend possessed of legal training, however, and such appeared long before the law gave them a recognized standing. David Lloyd, a resident of Philadelphia, and a regular practitioner of the law, appeared before the Bucks county court in 1657, and William Looker and Henry Waddy, who were evidently not residents of the county, and probably trained advocates, in the year before. So in 1690 John Swift, "a friend," and Hugh Marsh, an attorney; in 1692, William Nichols; and in 1704, John Moore and George Lowther (attorney general in 1705) appeared as attorneys. On June 8, 1708, Thomas Clark, the first deputy attorney-general, was commissioned for the county.

In spite of Quaker opposition, the lawyers had at this time gained a secure foothold in the Bucks county courts, and there were now oyers, imparlances. continuances, etc., in approved form. Henceforth, technicalities were to be resorted to and insisted upon in spite of impotent protests. In 1701, the courts had been authorized to make their own rules of practice, and in the year succeeding the appointment of the deputy attorney-general appears the first court rule. It is found under date of December 11, 1709, and provides "that where the defendant imparles, he shall plead at least ten days before the second court in order that a venire may issue for tryal." The admission of lawyers to the Philadelphia courts was authorized by law in 1710, and five years later this provision was extended to all the courts of the province. Any complete list of the attorneys admitted at this time is impossible, but the "appearance docket" now on file in the prothonotary’s office gives the names of those who had cases in court from 1727. From that date to 1734 the lawyers whose names appear most frequently were Joseph Growden, Andrew Hamilton, Thomas Biles, Nathan Watson, John Emerson, William Pierce, G.H. Sherwood, John Baker, Isaac Pennington, Thomas Bowes, William Fry, and John Grohock. Most of these men were residents of Bucks county, though such of them as gained distinction in the profession practiced much in Philadelphia.

Joseph Growden came to the province in 1682, and settled in what is now Bensalem township, where he located his purchase of ten thousand acres. He does not appear to have been identified with Bucks county until 1686, when he was elected to represent it in the assembly. He subsequently served in this body thirteen times, being chosen speaker eight times. He was member of the provincial council fourteen years also. In 1690 he was appointed a member of the provincial court, and in 1706 was placed upon the supreme bench. As a lawyer, however, Andrew Hamilton gained the greatest distinction of these early practitioners, and was nearly as greatly distinguished in the assembly. He was a native of Scotland, and emigrated to Maryland, from whence he came to Pennsylvania about 1713, under the assumed name of Trent. He soon attained the leading position at the Philadelphia bar, and in 1717 was appointed the fifth attorney-general of the province. In 1720 he reluctantly became a member of the provincial council at the urgent solicitation of Governor Keith, but only on condition "that he should not as member of council forego any part of his practice in the law, on which he had his sole dependence." He remained in the council until 1724, and does not appear again in, the legislative annals until 1727, when he represented Bucks county in the assembly. He continued a member of the assembly until 1733, and served as speaker until 1729, succeeding himself in this position until his temporary retirement three years later. In 1734 he was again a member of the assembly from Bucks anti speaker, and served in these capacities continuously until 1739, when he resigned on account of the infirmities of age. He was selected by the proprietors, in 1732, as one of the commissioners to adjust the boundary between Pennsylvania and Maryland, and in 1734 was appointed by Governor Gordon to secure the release of four inhabitants of the province whom the Maryland authorities had seized and imprisoned. He was among the earliest and one of the most earnest advocates of liberty, his argument in the case of Zenger before the supreme court of New York, in 1736, being called by Gouverneur Morris the "day-star of the revolution." He was born in 1712, and died in 1741. Of his private character it was said "he feared God, loved mercy, and did justice."

From 1750 to 1760 the attorneys who seem to have enjoyed the most remunerative practice in the county were John Moland, John Ross, Benjamin Price, Joseph Galloway, and Benjamin Chew. Of these the services of Joseph Galloway were most frequently sought. He began his professional life in 1744 in Philadelphia, and eventually built up a large practice. He came to Newtown in 1761, and removed about 1770 to the Growden homestead. He was elected to the assembly in 1764 and was successively elected for several years. He served as speaker in one assembly, and in 1774 was elected to congress. He subsequently abandoned the cause of the colonies, and went to England where he died in 1803. There were two lawyers by the name of John Ross in this period, but neither belonged to the family which subsequently contributed four members to the legal profession from the county. From 1760 to 1767 the leading lawyers among the fresh accessions to the bar were John Morris, Jr., Nicholas Walne, John Dickinson, Thomas McKean, Alexander Wilson, and Andrew Allen; from 1770 to 1776 the names of Jacob Bankson, Peter Zachary Lloyd, John Lawrence, and Joseph Reed appear; and during the progress of the revolution the business before the courts was managed by Phineas Bond, Jonathan Sargeant, Jared Ingersoll, J.F. Mifflin, and others.

Among the names noted were several of much more than local fame. Nicholas Walne was probably a grandson of the early settler of the county, who was widely known as a Quaker preacher, and who "appeared at all times with a smile of sunshine upon his countenance."

John Dickinson was a native of Maryland, but studied law in Philadelphia, and subsequently at London. He gained considerable reputation at the bar, but is chiefly distinguished as a statesman and publicist. He was elected to the assembly in 1764, and developed unusual ability as a debater. In the following year be was elected to the first colonial congress from the province, and drafted the resolutions of that body. In 1768 he published his "Farmer’s Letters," and in 1788 his "Fabius" letters in favor of adopting the new constitution. He was a member of the first continental congress, some of the most important papers of which came from his pen. He was conservative in his views of the grievances of the colonies, and advocated compromise until the public favor. He was returned to congress in 1779 from Delaware.

Thomas McKean (spelled also MacKean) was a native of Chester county, was admitted to the bar in 1757, and in 1762 was elected a member of the assembly to which he was annually returned for the next seventeen years. He was a member of the first colonial congress in New York, and in 1774 was sent from the lower counties to the first continental congress. In 1777, while still a member of congress, he was appointed chief-justice of Pennsylvania, and in 1799 retired from the bench to assume the position of governor of the state, to which he had been elected.

Joseph Reed was a native of Trenton, New Jersey. He was graduated by the college of New Jersey in 1757, and in 1763 went to England to prepare for the legal profession. The troubles produced by the stamp act hastened his return to his native place, where he entered upon the practice of law. He was prominently engaged in the various measures adopted by the colonies to unite their powers against England; was aid-de-camp and secretary to Washington; was appointed adjutant-general in 1776, and in the following year was appointed chief-justice of Pennsylvania.

Jared Ingersoll was a native of Connecticut. He was graduated by Yale college in 1766, studied law for five years in London, and returning to Philadelphia rapidly gained prominence in his profession. He was a member of the convention which framed the constitution of the United States; was twice appointed to the office of attorney-general for the state; and in 1812 was the federal candidate for vice-president of the nation. There were others scarcely less renowned, and while many of them lived in other parts their presence here contributed a brilliancy to the early bar that, in the changed order of things, cannot again be equalled.

The principal steps in the progressive development of the present judiciary are indicated by the constitution of 1790, the amendments of 1838 and 1850, and the constitution adopted in 1874 Article V. of the first state constitution provides for the judiciary as follows:—

SECTION 1. The judicial power of this commonwealth shall be vested in a Supreme Court, in Courts of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery, in a Court of Common Pleas, Orphans’ Court, Register’s Court, and a Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace for each county, in Justices of the Peace, and in such other Courts as the legislature may, from time to time, establish.

SECTION II. The Judges of the Supreme Court, and of the several Courts of Common Pleas, shall hold their offices during good behavior: But for any reasonable cause, which shall not be sufficient ground for impeachment, the Governor may remove any of them on the address of two-thirds of each branch of the legislature. The Judges of the Supreme Court, and the Presidents of the several Courts of Common Pleas shall, at stated times, receive for their services, an adequate compensation, to be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office; but they shall receive no fees or perquisites of office, nor hold any office of profit under this commonwealth.

SECTION III. The jurisdiction of time Supreme Court shall extend over the state, and the Judges thereof shall, by virtue of their office, be Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery in the several counties.

SECTION IV. Until it shall be otherwise directed by law, the several Courts of Common Pleas shall be established in the following manner. The Governor shall appoint in each county not fewer than three, nor more than four Judges, who, during their continuance in office, shall reside in such county: The state shall be divided by law into circuits, none of which shall include more than six nor fewer than three counties: A President shall be appointed of the courts in each circuit, who, during his continuance in office, shall reside therein: The President and Judges, any two of whom shall be a quorum, shall compose the respective Courts of Common Fleas.

SECTION V. The Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, in each county, shall, by virtue of their offices, be Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery, for the trial of capital and other offenders therein: Any two of the said Judges, the President being one, shall be a quorum; but they shall not hold a Court of Oyer and Terminer or Gaol Delivery in any county, when time Judges of the Supreme Court, or any of them, shall be sitting in the same county. The party accused, as well as the commonwealth, may, under such regulations as shall be prescribed by law, remove the indictment and proceedings, or a transcript thereof, into the Supreme Court.

SECTION VI. The Supreme Court and the several Courts of Common Pleas shall, besides the powers heretofore usually exercised hr them, have the power of a Court of Chancery, so far as relates to time perpetuation of testimony, the obtaining of evidence from places not within the state, and the care of the persons and estates of those who are non compotes mentis: And the legislature shall vest in the said courts such other powers to grant relief in equity as shall be found necessary; and may, from time to time, enlarge or diminish those powers, or vest them in such other courts, as they shall judge proper, for the due administration of justice.

SECTION VII. The Judges of the Court of Common Pleas of each county, any two of whom shall be a quorum, shall compose the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace and Orphans’ Court; and the Register of Wills, together with the said Judges, or any two of them, shall compose the Register’s Court of each county.

SECTION VIII. The Judges of time Court of Common Pleas shall, within their respective counties, have the like powers with the Judges of the Supreme Court to issue writs of certiorari to the Justices of the Peace, and to cause their proceedings to be brought before them, and the like right and justice to be done.

SECTION IX. The President of the Courts in each circuit, within such circuit, and the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, within their respective counties, shall be Justices of the Peace, so far as relates to criminal matters.

SECTION X. The Governor shall appoint a competent number of Justices of the Peace, in such convenient districts, in each county, as are or shall be directed by law: They shall be commissioned during good behavior; but may be removed on conviction of misbehavior in office, or of any infamous crime, or on address of both houses of time legislature.

SECTION XI. A Register’s office for the probate of wills and granting letters of administration, and an office for the recording of deeds, shall be kept in each county.

SECTION XII. The style of all process shall be, The commonwealth of Pennsylvania; all prosecutions shall be carried on in time name and by time authority of time commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and conclude as, Against the peace and dignity of the same.

The judiciary thus constituted has since been variously modified at different times. The courts in which the judicial power was there vested still remain, save the register’s court, which was omitted by the "new" constitution and its powers and jurisdiction granted the orphans’ court; and "magistrates’ court" was substituted for "justices of the peace" by the same instrument. The number of supreme judges was fixed at five in 1776, reduced to three in 1809, but restored to five in 1826, and left unchanged until 1874, when it was still further increased to seven. In 1838 they were directed to be nominated by the governor, but appointed and commissioned by and with the advice of the senate for a term of ten years. In 1850 they were made elective, the terms of the first to be chosen under this amendment to be for three, six, nine, twelve, and fifteen years respectively, the term of each to be determined by lot among themselves. One judge was to be elected every three years thereafter for a term of fifteen years, the judge whose commission should first expire to he the chief-justice. The "new" constitution makes the term twenty-one years, and the judges eligible for one term only. In 1780 a Court of Errors and Appeals was erected as a court of final resort, but this was abolished in 1806, and its jurisdiction transferred to the supreme court. The constitution of 1874 continued this feature, and gives the court original jurisdiction only "in cases of injunction where a corporation is a party defendant, of habeas corpus, of mandamus to courts of inferior jurisdiction, and of quo warranto as to all officers of the commonwealth whose jurisdiction extends over the state."

The constitution of the court of common pleas has remained unchanged, save by the operation of section 5, of article V. of the "new" constitution.

This provides that, Whenever a county shall contain forty thousand inhabitants, it shall constitute a separate judicial district, and shall elect one judge learned in the law, and the general assembly shall provide for additional judges as the business of the said districts may require. Counties containing a population less than is sufficient to constitute separate districts shall be formed into convenient single districts, or, if necessary, may be attached to contiguous districts, as the general assembly may provide. The office of associate judge, not learned in the law, is abolished in counties forming separate districts, but the several associate judges in office when this constitution shall be adopted shall serve for their unexpired terms.

The term of the president judges of common pleas court was limited in 1838 to ten years, and was left unchanged in 1874; their jurisdiction and chancery powers were also unaltered, although the phrase "learned in the law," in section 9 of article V. of the "new" constitution, has given rise to different opinions. In 1838 the justices of the peace were made elective with a term of five years, and this provision was incorporated in the last constitution.

The first president judge of Bucks county was Henry Wynkoop. his great-grandfather emigrated from Utrecht early in the seventeenth century, and came to New York, subsequently settling at Albany. He left four sons at his death, of whom the third, Gerardus, came to Moreland in 1717, and at his death there left five Sons and three daughters. Of this family the third son, who bore his father’s name, came to Bucks county about 1744, where he spent the remainder of his days. He left a daughter and son, named Henry. The latter was born on March 2, 1737, and seemed destined to gain distinction only as a prosperous farmer. It appears that he prepared to enter Princeton college, but was hindered from consummating his design. He was greatly interested in the course of affairs which led up to the revolution, and subsequently gained the title of major, though it is not believed he ever held a commission. He was possessed of fine intelligence; was noted for his strict integrity, and exerted a commanding influence over the community in which he lived. He enjoyed the confidence and respect of Washington, Hamilton, and others of the revolutionary leaders, and was prominently identified with the civil measures’ adopted to carry on that struggle. He was a member of the Bucks county committee of safety in 1774—6, a member of the body that framed the "Declaration of Independence," and a member of the first national congress. After the battle of Trenton, Mr. Wynkoop hastened to the army to render assistance to the wounded. Lieutenant Wilmot, an English officer, and Lieutenant Monroe of the American army, both wounded, were committed to his care by Washington, where they remained until recovered. Judge Wynkoop was six feet four inches tall, of fine appearance, and presided over the county courts for thirty years. He died in 1816, leaving eight children and more than forty grandchildren.

There is little of curious interest to be found in the records of this or a later period, but a single extract affords a passing view of the pomp which served to impress the unlearned with the majesty of the law. It was the duty of all the constables in the county to attend the sessions of the court, but in 1784 the justices of the quarter sessions made a new order in the matter, as follows:

As it is unnecessary that all the constables in the county should attend upon the court during the whole time of each session or term, and that the future attendance of the constables may be made more easy and convenient to themselves, the service therefrom be rendered more certain and beneficial to the community: It is ordered for the future as soon as the constables have read their citations, as by law directed, they shall be all discharged except seven, which number shall attend in their term agreeable to the following distribution, viz : For September court, Bristol borough, Bensalem, Buckingham, Bedminster, Falls, Hilltown, and Haycock; for December court, Bristol township, Durham, Middletown, Upper Makefield, Lower Makefield, Milford, Newtown; for March court, Northampton, Nockamixon, New Britain, Plumstead, Rockhill, Richland, Southampton; for June court, Solebury, Springfield, Tinicum, Wrightstown, Warwick, Warminster, and Warrington. It is likewise ordered that those whose term it shall be from time to time to attend be punctual therein; that upon no account they absent themselves without leave of the court, publicly obtained; that during the sitting of the court they constantly appear with their staves in their hands; that after the court shall have adjourned they walk in procession with their staves before the sheriff to the door of the justice room, where they shall deposit their staves until the time of adjournment shall have expired, when they shall again attend and walk to the court—house door as before directed. Should any constable neglect or refuse to attend in his term, as above directed, the clerk of the court shall make a note thereof at the time upon the docket, that after the expiration of his office, said offending constable may be prosecuted for neglect of duty and fined as by law directed.

And that the constables may be properly notified of the time when their term of attendance will be, the clerk of the session shall, from time to time, immediately after the constables have been sworn and affirmed to their returns, read the names of the townships whose constables are to attend the court then sitting, and likewise of those whose term of attendance will be the next court ensuing, that they may be acquainted with that part of their duty beforehand and regulate their family affairs accordingly.

At the same time the court called the attention of the grand jury to the constables’ staves which still bore the design of the provincial government. "The grand inquest for the body of this county" accordingly put its several heads together, and after consideration presented "that the present device ought to be obliterated, and that the arms of the state of Pennsylvania, with such addition as the court shall think fit, be put in the room thereof." The court concurred in the grand jury’s recommendation, and suggested "that a buck be added by way of a crest, to denote the county." This change was effected. On the resignation of Judge Wynkoop, John Barclay, the prothonotary, was appointed his successor, August 14, 1789.

Bird Wilson, who succeeded Wynkoop as president of the common pleas court, was a son of James Wilson, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. The latter was a native of Scotland, emigrated to the United States, speculated extensively in public lands, and was at one time possessed of large wealth, but eventually met with serious reverses. He was elected in 1775 to the first continental congress, and was appointed by Washington one of the first judges of the United States supreme court. His son, Bird Wilson, was liberally educated and, adopting the legal profession, became a successful lawyer. He was appointed president of the seventh judicial district, then consisting of Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester counties, in 1806, and took his seat in April. He resigned in January, 1818, and entered the ministry; served the St. John’s Episcopal church of Norristown from 1819 till the fall of 1821, when he removed to New York and became connected with a theological seminary. Different reasons are assigned for his abandonment of the legal profession. One is, his disgust with a reversal of his decision in the case of the Whitemarsh church; another is, his unwillingness to preside over the trial of a man charged with murder, whose crime was so apparent as to make it reasonably certain that the judge would find it his duty to sentence him to the gallows. He edited an edition of "Bacon’s Abridgment of English Laws," which was published in 1809.

John Ross succeeded Judge Wilson, and took his seat on the 13th of January, 1818. His father, Thomas Ross, was a native of Tyrone county, Ireland, and immigrated in 1728 to Pennsylvania. He joined the Friends at Wrightstown in the following year, and subsequently became prominent in the society as a preacher. Judge Ross began his career as a school-teacher, and in this vocation reached the great turning-point in his life. While teaching a school at Durham he attracted the attention of Richard Backhouse, the proprietor of the furnace, who persuaded the young man to enter upon the study of law at Easton, agreeing to support him until he could maintain himself by his profession. He was a close student, became well versed in the law, and acquired a profitable practice. After his appointment to the seventh judicial district he continued to preside until 1830, when he was appointed to the supreme bench of the state.

Judge Ross was "a gentleman of the old school." The law of his time was strongly tinctured with English ideas, and in absorbing the legal principles of Blackstone, he unconsciously acquired a relish for the institutions of the mother country. This was apparent in all his conduct, and it is said that with the addition of a wig and gown would have served as an excellent model of an English judge. He was a tall, athletic man; aristocratic in feeling, of a stern, unyielding nature, and withal somewhat eccentric. He displayed a taste for certain spotted horses, which were then rarely seen, and even now are commonly associated with the circus, and these, with the lumbering coach in which he made his journeys to and fro between Philadelphia and Doylestown, constituted an equipage that never failed to command the admiring awe of the rustic. He died in 1834. He had prepared for this event by setting apart a family burial-spot on property purchased in one of the most secluded sections of Monroe county. His body rests there, but the family has not followed his example in this respect.

John Fox succeeded Judge Ross. The new president was a member of one of the old Bucks county families. His father was born in Ireland of English parents, and came to this country some time in the second half of the last century. He was auditor-general in 1783, and was represented as "a young man of good abilities, especially in his present line." He afterward acquired a large property, but suffered the too common experience of the period in a reversal of fortune. Judge Fox studied for the bar, and began his practice at Newtown. He was deputy attorney-general in 1814. When the news of time landing of the British at Elk creek reached Doylestown the court was in session, and Mr. Fox, announcing the fact, suggested to Judge Wilson that he adjourn the court, that each might discharge his patriotic duty in the emergency. The judge declined to adopt the suggestion, whereupon the deputy attorney-general, exclaiming, "this is no place for me," immediately left the court followed by Associate Justice Watts, and joined the command of General Worrill, on whose staff he served with the rank of major. Judge Fox presided over the county courts from 1830 to 1840. His personal appearance was not prepossessing. He was afflicted with obliquity of vision, was lame, and "round-shouldered" almost to the extent of deformity. In temperament he was equally unfortunate. Irascible, arbitrary, and arrogant toward competitors, and those outside of the circle of his friendship, he was quite the reverse within that circle, and especially in his home, and his domestic virtues did much to soften the harsh outlines of his general reputation.

The constitutional amendments of 1838 rendered a new appointment of president necessary. William T. Rogers, an ardent friend of Fox, was then in the state senate, and recommended his friend to the governor, who was accordingly nominated to the senate. This brought out an almost unanimous protest from the local bar. His ability was conceded, but the numerous unfortunate entanglements of the man precluded his highest usefulness as a judge. The matter was not decided, however, without a spirited contest. Petitions pro and con were industriously circulated in the county and numerously signed. E.T. McDowell was the principal champion of the opposition, and it is said that he employed R.M. Maddoc, a justice of the peace and a well-known character of Doylestown, to solicit signatures for his side of the case. The bargain was struck at ten cents a name, and Maddoc soon turned up with an overwhelming array of names, including those of a majority of the best families in the county, which seriously depleted the cash account of the enthusiastic leader. It was subsequently found that Maddoc had cleverly simulated the writing of many whose names had been secured from the tombstones of the county, but as the deception passed the scrutiny of the senate, the circulator of the petition was left undisturbed in the enjoyment of his ill-gotten gains. McDowell went to Harrisburg to conduct the opposition campaign, and a story of his, apropos of Fox’s appearance and the contest, will bear repeating. Mr. Fox’s hopes were largely centered in the continued support of a certain western senator, who, meeting McDowell, upbraided him for opposing a man of such marked legal ability. Fox and his ardent supporters had never met, and the leader of the opposition proposed to bring the two together. The meeting occurred within an hour, and after a brief interview, the visitors retired. As the story goes, the senator turned to McDowell with the exclamation: "That settles it: if that man is not a scoundrel, the Almighty never wrote a legible hand upon the face of any human creature." Whatever credence may be placed in the story, the fact of the sudden change in the attitude of the impulsive senator cannot be questioned. With that change failed the candidate’s last hope. He withdrew his name, and, it is said, never knew what proved so fatal to his prospects. He afterward returned to the practice before the court, but was not conspicuously active.

Thomas Burnside was subsequently nominated for this district, which was then numbered the fifth, and consisted of Bucks and Montgomery counties. He was of Irish birth and parentage, and at the age of ten came with his parents to this country. He received his first legal instruction from Hon. Robert Porter, of Philadelphia, from whose office he was admitted, in 1804, to the bar of that city. In March of the same year he went to Bellefonte and began the practice of his profession. In 1811 he was sent to the state senate from that district, and in 18l5 to congress. In the summer of the next year he was appointed president of the Luzerne judicial district, but two years later he resigned his position and resumed his legal practice. In 1822 he was again elected to the state senate and was elevated to the speakership. In 1826, while a member of the senate, he was appointed president of the Centre county judicial district, where he remained upon the bench for fifteen years, discharging with great tact and signal ability the important duties of his position. On April 1, 1841, he was appointed to the fifth judicial district, and in 1845 was promoted to the supreme court. He was nominated for the Bucks district by his old preceptor who was then governor of the state, and was not confirmed without some opposition. Six of the senators spoke against his confirmation on the ground that any tendency to prolong the terms of judges in office should be checked. Governor Porter advocated similar views in the message of that year, but when the vote was taken his nomination was confirmed by a majority of seven votes.

Judge Burnside’s features were notably homely, the effect of which he seemed pleased to exaggerate by a total disregard of all personal tidiness. When the news of his appointment reached the county his appearance was the chief subject of comment, and the general source of consolation was that they had not been accustomed to much beauty on the bench. In fact, Judge Burnside always affected to believe his predecessor was his rival in this respect. It was apparently his delight to pose as a mendicant before strangers, and nonplus them when opportunity offered, by discovering his actual character. It was in such guise that he presented himself in Doylestown, and was barely allowed standing room while the mistress of the house dispatched a messenger for her husband, who relieved the lady’s alarm by announcing the visitor as the newly appointed judge. His first "opinion" delivered in the Bucks county court was equally eccentric. In the trial of a cause it became necessary to swear a witness. The judge called "Mr. Clerk!" several times, but that functionary, rendered somewhat obtuse by liquor, failed to comprehend that he was the one addressed. The crier was slumbering in his place unconscious of the judge’s difficulty, who, after vainly looking about for a testament to perform the service himself, was moved to deliver an unsolicited opinion on his own motion. Rising from his seat, he bellowed out: "This is one h--l of a court, the clerk drunk, the crier asleep, and no testament about!" His eminent ability, however, commanded the respect of the bar, and when he was promoted to the supreme court the selection was approved by those who had had opportunity to learn his qualifications. He served in the latter position until his death on March 25, 1851.

David Krause, of Dauphin county, was appointed to the vacancy occasioned by the promotion of Burnside, and took his seat on the 3d of February, 1845. He was a well-read lawyer, deep in "titles, deeds, and parchments," and a good counsellor rather than an advocate. He retained the "sweet German accent," and was wont to cut short the reiterated statements of law by exclaiming:
     "Yes, talk, talk; but bring me the pook." He was the last of the appointed judges, and went off the bench under the operation of the constitutional amendment of 1850. He returned to the practice of his profession at Norristown, but did not achieve especial success.

Daniel M. Smyser, of Adams county, was elected to succeed Judge Krause. His election was secured by a split in the local ranks of the democratic party. The Bucks county convention nominated Henry Chapman with power to appoint his own conferrees, and Montgomery county conferred similar honors upon Joseph Fornance. The conferrees met on the dividing line between the two counties at Montgomery Square, and from Monday to Saturday night at twelve o’clock balloted with the same result, four votes for each candidate. Bucks county then withdrew from the conference and placed its candidate independently in the field, and Montgomery county did the same for its representative. The contest which followed was spirited and uncertain till the end. Smyser was elected by the anti-democrats, but the friends of Mr. Chapman demonstrated that they were greatly in the majority within their party. Judge Smyser was better as a politician perhaps than a judge, but his discharge of his judicial duties was acceptable, and had the political party with which he affiliated been in the majority he would probably have been re-elected. His friends were sanguine of such a result, however, in 1861, but were disappointed. He was the candidate of the whigs for the supreme bench in 1854, and was a member of the "Know-nothing" organization, but was defeated. At the expiration of his term he resumed his practice at Norristown, but demonstrated the folly of such a course by the disappointing failure which followed.

The contest of 1851 had made Henry Chapman the obvious candidate to succeed Judge Smyser. He was a member of an old and respected Bucks county family, was admitted to the bar in 1825, and had succeeded to the important practice which his father had built up. He was elected to the state senate in 1843, where he served one term, and to the lower house of congress in 1856, to which he declined a re-election after serving his initial term. From 1547 to 1851 he presided over the courts of Chester and Delaware counties, but declined a renomination there to stand for his native district. In 1861 Fornance was dead, and none cared to challenge Mr. Chapman’s popularity with his own party. His election was, therefore, a foregone conclusion from the first. He served upon the bench with distinguished ability until 1871, when he declined a re-election, and retired to private life.

Mr. Chapman. was well characterized to become a leader of men. Impetuous as well, as impulsive, he nevertheless so tempered these characteristics by a sound discretion, that he became equally marked for his excessive reserve. In his active career he was the object of the warmest and most demonstrative friendship and the bitterest and most determined antagonism, neither of which was limited by political lines. As a warm admirer has said:

The elevation reached by Henry Chapman, both as advocate and judge, was deservedly high. Amongst many essential qualifications, natural and acquired, was that sublime bestowment of the Maker, a truly well-balanced mind . . . . Study, education, and the faculty of mental concentration made him a safe counsellor and successful advocate. His classical acquirements and fine literary taste lent a gloss to his oratory exceedingly attractive. I feel fully justified in asserting that Henry Chapman was the strongest man before a jury I have ever known in a long lifetime. He had argument, denunciation, pathos, intensity, and that unflagging earnestness that must triumph in the end. And yet, what seems not a little strange, he was the slowest and most deliberate of all speakers I ever heard, but one . . . . In Judge Chapman we find the happy mingling of scientific, literary, agricultural, and professional pursuits. He has an eye for the perfection of nature— an ear for the melody of birds. He was always a great reader. Aside from Blackstone and Purdon, the English classics were not overlooked. He found in the pages of the immortal Bard of Avon a chord attuned in sympathy with his own nature. It inspired and beautified his forensic displays, and illuminated the products of his pen. It is well to be an able lawyer and an upright judge. It enhances the merits of both to find in Shakespeare and Walter Scott the fountains of inspiration.

Henry P. Ross succeeded Judge Chapman. He was the grandson of Judge John Ross, and a son of the Hon. Thomas Ross. He was fitted for college at the private school of the Messrs. Long, near Hartsville, this county; graduated at Princeton, with honors, in 1857; read law with his father, and was admitted in December, 1859. He commenced practice with his father and soon took a leading position at the bar. At his father’s death, he formed a partnership with his brother George, which was continued until the deceased was called to the bench. In all these years, Judge Ross grew into a sound and brilliant lawyer, and held the leading practice. Honors in, and out, of the profession were tendered him. He was district attorney from 1862 to 1865; democratic candidate for congress in 1864 and l866, but defeated; in 1864 and 1868 he was delegate to the national convention; and was appointed deputy escheater-general for Bucks in 1865. When the Seventh Judicial district, composed of Bucks and Montgomery, was authorized to elect an additional law judge in 1869, he was elected to that position, the Hon. Henry Chapman being president judge. In 1871 he was elected president judge to succeed Chapman, and was reelected in 1881 for Montgomery county. Judge Ross was the next to highest candidate for nomination for supreme judge in the democratic convention of 1874, and received the nomination for that office in 1878, but was defeated. In 1875 he came near being nominated for governor. Whenever he was before the people he received more than his party vote.

In the character of Judge Ross there is much to admire. He was filled with generous emotions, and was both ready and willing to help others. As a companion he was most genial, and there was a charm in his manners which impressed all who came in contact with him. His personal magnetism was felt in his dealings with men. Judge Ross was probably the ablest man born in Bucks county in his generation, and the most brilliant. His mind was sound, grasping, and discriminating, which his studious habits had stored with a vast amount of knowledge outside of his profession. His integrity was above question. He was a very able lawyer, and, as a judge, had no superior in the state. His decisions were models of terseness, and seldom overruled, and when upon the bench he possessed that valuable quality for a judge to have, called "snap." He wrote well, and was a fluent, graceful speaker, sometimes rising to eloquence. He was born to state-craft, and took to politics as naturally as Richelieu. He was a recognized power in the democratic party of the state, and had he lived and devoted himself to politics, he would have made himself felt throughout the country. But the law was his field, and he exemplified the saying that lawyers and poets are not made but born.

The election of Judge Ross as president of the district in 1871 left a vacancy to which Arthur G. Olmstead, of Potter county, was appointed. He took his seat on February 5, 1872. On this date the Bucks county court opened with four judges on the bench— Judge Chapman, the retiring officer, his successor, Judge Ross, the new additional law judge, Mr. Olmstead, and the last associate judge of Bucks county, William Godschalk. When elected in 1869 the presiding judge remained in Bucks, and Mr. Ross accordingly fixed his residence at Norristown. When elected president judge he preferred to remain in Montgomery county, and Olmstead became a resident of Doylestown. The new judge was described in the papers at that time as "a tall, fine-looking man, apparently about fifty years of age, with his hair and beard slightly frosted with gray. His manners are agreeable, and his long familiarity with public business as a lawyer and a member of both branches of the legislature will soon make him perfectly at home in his new associations." Judge Olmstead did not disappoint this anticipation, but his ill-health was an obstacle to his prolonged service. He came to the county directly from the doctor’s care, and was scarcely able to discharge the full duties of his position, and held but one term of court. At the October election in 1872, Stokes L. Roberts was elected to supply the vacancy to which Judge Olmstead had been appointed, and took his seat the next term.

Judge Roberts was born in Richland township, and was a descendant of Edward Roberts, who settled there in the spring of 1716. The former was educated at Princeton, and soon after receiving his degree entered the office of George M. Dallas, of Philadelphia. He was admitted to the bar in the city, but subsequently opened an office at Newtown, and in 1832 was admitted to the local bar. Mr. Roberts early took an active part in politics, and was elected to the lower house of the legislature in 1838 and 1839, but in 1840 was defeated. He removed to Doylestown soon after he left the legislature, and resumed the practice of the law. He was made, deputy attorney-general in 1844, and was tendered the consulate at St. Jago de Cuba by President Buchanan, but declined it. In 1858 he was a candidate for congress, but was defeated, and soon after the war broke out he went with his wife to Europe, where he remained two years. He never again earnestly resumed the practice of law, and it was not until some years after he had dissolved all connection with the courts and legal proceedings and after modes and forms of practice had materially changed that he was elected to the bench of the Bucks county courts. He was suffering with ill-health, and he soon discovered that his condition and the labors and responsibilities of the position did not accord, and resigned after holding a single term of court. He was a man of unimpeachable integrity; he was uniformly courteous towards the bench and his professional brethren; a zealous advocate and faithful to his client, he was a diligent student, of which the numerous marginal notes and references, to be found in the volumes of his law library, give ample evidence. In his personal relations he was pleasant and genial, and in all respects a polished gentleman.

To the vacancy occasioned Ly the resignation of Judge Roberts, Richard Watson was appointed on January 18, 1873, and in the succeeding fall was nominated and elected for a full term upon the bench. Mr. Watson is a descendant of Thomas Watson, one of the earliest settlers of Buckingham township. His ancestors had generally studied medicine, and his mind was thus naturally turned towards a professional career for himself. His father was a surveyor and conveyancer, and Mr. Watson, early becoming acquainted with deeds, titles, and parchments, acquired a taste for legal studies. His education was principally derived from the schools in the vicinity of his country home, but the scholarly interest of his father furnished the incentive, and a local public library the foundation of a broader culture. Mr. Watson was the youngest son and the only one remaining at home, and the pleasure of his father led him to begin his legal studies in Bucks county. These he pursued for a time at home, but in 1844 he entered the office of Charles E. Du Bois, and two years later was admitted to the bar.

As a lawyer Mr. Watson studied the fundamental principles and sought to perfect himself in the science of law rather than in the practice before the jury. His tastes as well as his course of Study gave him a standing among close legal students rather than litigants, and his clientage consisted principally of those whose causes required a thorough knowledge of the intricacies of legal principles rather than the graces of oratory. In the particular field of will cases and real estate contests Mr. Watson was perhaps the foremost lawyer at the bar, and there were few such cases of importance in which he was not engaged. He seldom took part in criminal cases unless such as involved his regular clients, the Teufel case presenting a notable exception. Mr. Watson sought no preferment outside of his profession. In 1853 he accepted the empty honor of nomination for the position of district attorney from the republicans. In 18G9 he was nominated by Bucks county as candidate for judge, but conceded the place to the nominee of Montgomery county. In 1873 he received the nomination of the district and was elected.

On the bench Mr. Watson was an upright judge, and his whole term was marked by an earnest, painstaking effort to do exact justice. His temperament did not permit him to disarm criticism, but upon questions of law he received the approval of the best minds. Through invitation, Judge Watson has held courts in some dozen counties of the state, and in these he never had a decision overruled. Of those made in Bucks county, and reviewed by the supreme court, few have been reversed, and in this respect he enjoys a reputation not excelled by any of his cotemporaries. His written opinions were numerous and exhaustive of the subject, and make some five manuscript volumes. Since his retirement from the bench he has devoted his energies to establishing a trust company in Doylestown, and transacting such legal business as his eminent abilities still attract, though unsolicited. Coke’s expression, "He knoweth not the law who knoweth not the reasons thereof, and the knowen certainty of the law is the safety of all," has been the inspiration of Judge Watson’s whole legal career, and it may safely be said that no member of the local fraternity excels him in an extended knowledge of its principles and history.

Harman Yerkes succeeded Judge Watson upon the bench in 1883. He is a native of Warminster township, and received his education in the common schools near his home, at Hartsville, and at East Hampton, Massachusetts. Owing to an injury received in his boyhood he was unfitted for severe manual labor, and his attention was thus early turned to professional life as a livelihood. Unprovided with the means of support while regularly preparing for his profession, he taught school and worked on the farm, reading law between times as opportunity offered. He studied under the direction of Henry P. Ross, and was admitted to the bar in 1865, on motion of his preceptor. In 1868 he was elected district attorney, and discharged the duties of this position with ability. Mr. Yerkes quickly won a prominent place at the bar, and was especially successful in criminal cases. In 1873 he was elected to the state senate, and three years later was re-elected. At the close of the second term Mr. Yerkes declined all political office, returned to his practice with renewed earnestness, and notwithstanding his name has been prominently mentioned for governor and other offices of the state, he has strictly adhered to his resolution. He is a close political student, a man of great popularity, and yet independent in his action when his judgment approves. His manly support of Attorney-General Lear, although of different political faith, has won him many friends outside of the circle of his own party in politics. In 1883 he was nominated for judge and was elected. Since then he has presided with dignity and general acceptance. His courtesy toward both the younger and older members of the bar, his promptness in the despatch of business, and the soundness of his decisions have all tended to enhance the good reputation and popularity he brought to that position. His duties as judge have tended to change the one-sided development which his practice and interest in politics were likely to induce, and his opinions from the bench bear the marks of deep study and wide research. Whether he continues upon the bench or is again drawn into politics, Judge Yerkes will remain an important factor in the public activities of the county.

Of the nearly one hundred and forty members of the Bucks county bar since 1790, mention may be properly made of those only whom death or other circumstance has removed from active relations to the court, and space forbids more than a brief sketch of those whose characteristics raised them above the average level. Of these the name of Abraham Chapman comes first. He was born in Wrightstown, and was a great-grandson of John Chapman, the founder of the family in Bucks county. His early education was derived from the schools of the county, and forcibly illustrates how little of mental power is acquired under the tuition of the schoolmaster. Having chosen the law as his profession he pursued his elementary legal studies in the office of Thomas Ross, then of West Chester, and in 1790 was admitted to the bar at Newtown. This place was then the county seat, and fixing his residence here, Mr. Chapman began the practice of his profession. There were then few resident attorneys, the larger number of practitioners coming from Philadelphia to attend the local court. The ability of the young lawyer rapidly secured for him the confidence of the community, and his legal business in a short time became larger than that of any other attorney in the county. In 1812 he followed the removal of the court to Doylestown, where he continued the practice of law until 1833, when he entirely relinquished it. He was a member of the Society of Friends until his marriage outside the society severed his connection with the sect. He continued in attendance upon its meetings, however, until his death. While an able advocate and a well-equipped counsellor, his success was chiefly due to his sterling integrity of character, which deeply impressed his fellow-citizens whether on the jury or in other walks of life. He died in 1856 with the profound respect of all, and his memory is still cherished as the father of the later bar.

Charles E. Du Bois, who was admitted to the bar in 1820, succeeded Mr. Chapman in the respect of the people. No man was more widely known in the county. His occupation for some years in the orphans’ court office had early brought him into personal contact with the business portion of the citizens. It led to extensive business in his profession. His fidelity and legal acquirements established him firmly in public estimation. Whatever was committed to him was done faithfully and well. Mr. Du Bois was deputy attorney-general of the commonwealth at the trial of Blundin, and such was the tenderness of his sensibilities that he was overcome with emotion in reading the indictment to the unfortunate man. The confidence reposed in Mr. Du Bois, whether as citizen, lawyer, or in business relations, was remarkable and was never misplaced. His integrity was so well grounded that his word was current with all men, and if it may truly be said of any man that he lived a lifetime without enemies, the honorable distinction was assuredly his. He had withal a keen relish for humor, and few in this respect were better qualified to add the boon of enlivening mirth to social company.

Eleazer T. McDowell was admitted to the bar in 1822, and though aided by few advantages rapidly achieved an enviable position in legal circles through his own abilities. In the zenith of his power, there was no man at the bar who could cope with him in facetious and witty declamation. His fund of humor was boundless, and without a tinge of bitterness. Juries were swayed and captivated by it, and yielded him a verdict with pleasure, or against him with regret. He was a man of commanding presence; rather over medium size, well formed, and eminently pleasing in manner and address. He was social, witty, genial, and what is known as popularity he obtained in fullest measure. His peculiarities gave him marked prominence in political campaigns, and was for years the center of local whig hopes, and the pillar of their fortunes. He declined all official position, save that of member of the state constitutional convention. He died in the full vigor of his powers and popularity, leaving none to succeed him in his peculiar position.

In 1829 Thomas Ross came to the bar. He was a born lawyer. With him a knowledge of the science of legal principles was apparently intuitive. He grappled with the intricate web by instinct. His mastery appeared in the early years of his practice, and in acumen, quickness of comprehension, boldness, and tact, he had few superiors in this district of the state. The rise of Mr. Ross in his profession was rapid. In less than three years after his admission, Recorder McIlvaine, of Philadelphia, placed the most important case, by far, that has ever been tried in this county into the hands of the young lawyer. It was the Andalusia tragedy, involving Mina and Mrs. Chapman in a charge of murder. The measure of diligence and ability he displayed is entitled to the highest commendation. Any one perusing the report of that trial, with its manifold developments of crimes and enormities, will be surprised to witness the exhibition of legal tact and learning shown in one so young in his profession. It was this celebrated trial that placed him at the front rank with his professional brethren— a position he maintained until the visitation of a fatal malady assailed him at the summit of his power. Mr. Ross was a man of medium stature, with remarkably expressive features of face and person. He had no sense of fear, and was intrepid and bold in the prosecution of his clients’ rights. Nothing was omitted in the trial of his cases, nor any inadvertence of his adversary suffered to escape his apprehension. The offices he held were those of attorney-general and member of the lower house of congress. His reputation as a lawyer is still a cherished tradition of the bar.

In 1833 Caleb E. Wright was admitted to the bar, and still remains one of the few survivors of the early members. He was cotemporary with Du Bois, McDowell, and Ross, whose sketches in these pages are largely indebted to his facile pen. He was of English parentage, but was born in the far-famed valley of Wyoming. His early education was gained at the academy at Wilkes-Barre, and at the age of twenty-one he began the study of law in the office of Chester Butler of the same place. In 1833 he went to Danville, and finished his legal studies with John G. Montgomery, whose kindly interest he repaid by successfully "stumping" the district in support of his candidature for congress. In the same year Mr. Wright was admitted to the bar in Wilkes-Barre and immediately set out for Montgomery county to begin his practice. A slight incident changed his destination. The route of the stages then led through Doylestown to Philadelphia. It was their custom to stop on alternate days at what are now time "Monument House" and the "Fountain house." Stopping at the latter, Mr. Wright proposed to look about the town one day and then proceed, but not understanding the arrangement of the stages waited on the following day in vain. The unintentional delay thus caused gave rise to a determination to stay here, and Mr. Wright became a member of the Bucks county bar that fall. For twenty years he practiced here, and then returned to Wilkes-Barre. At the latter place he continued his practice for twenty-three years, when he concluded to retire, and returned to Doylestown to spend the remainder of his days.

In 1839 he was appointed deputy attorney-general, and served until 1844 while at Wilkes-Barre he was appointed collector of internal revenue by President Johnson, entirely unsolicited, and subsequently was elected a member of the constitutional convention. Mr. Wright devoted himself entirely to the legitimate practice of his profession, and sought neither political nor legal preferment. He was pre-eminently a jury lawyer. His tastes led him to seek proficiency as an advocate rather than as a counsellor, and his fund of humor and faculty of eloquent persuasion were found in constant demand wherever an array of legal talent was engaged upon a case. Since his retirement in 1876, Mr. Wright has relieved the tedium of his leisure hours by writing sketches of the early times based upon the facts of his early observation and experience.

George Lear was admitted to the bar in 1844. He was born in Warwick township, and attended the schools in the neighborhood of his home until the age of thirteen, when he finished his schooling with a term at the Newtown academy. From this time he assumed the responsibility of directing his career without aid from others, and until the age of nineteen sought employment as a common farm laborer. He then turned his attention to teaching school, and it was not until he arrived at the age of twenty-five that he entered the office of E.T. McDowell to study law. He had employed his leisure hours in legal study, however, and in 1844 was admitted to practice. He "took the stump" for Henry Clay in this year, and gained prominence as an effective speaker. He gradually acquired an extended practice until he possessed the most lucrative one at the Bucks county bar.

Mr. Lear was appointed deputy attorney-general in 1848, but retired in 1850, when the office was made elective. In 1872 he was elected a member of the constitutional convention, and in 1874 was presented by Bucks county as a candidate for congress, but failed of nomination. On December 7, 1875, he assumed the office of attorney-general of the commonwealth under appointment of Governor Hartranft. He discharged the duties of this position with conspicuous ability until February 26, 1879, when he was succeeded by Henry W. Palmer. As described in 1872, Mr. Lear possessed a full and manly figure; his hair very slightly tinged with gray; his cleanly shaven face showed off to good advantage his dark, stern, full face surmounted with a forehead filled with brain power and legal lore. He was a self-made, self-reliant, thoroughly educated man, though not a college graduate. He was then as vigorous as a lion and as fearless as a locomotive itself upon the track. As a lawyer he took the highest rank in the state. He was an ardent republican in politics, frequently engaged in its campaigns with great earnestness and effect, but did not hesitate to act independently when his judgment approved. He died in 1885 without enemies, and in the enjoyment of the profound respect of all.

Edward M. Paxson was admitted to the bar in 1850. He is a descendant of an early settler in Buckingham township, where he gained an elementary education. He early showed unusual ability in composition, and when quite young developed a taste for journalism. He acquired a knowledge of the practical part of the business, and in 1842 established a newspaper at Newtown. This he disposed of in 1847 to engage in a more ambitious journalistic venture in Philadelphia, but in the following year sold his interest, and began the study of law in the office of Hon. Henry Chapman. In 1852 he moved to Philadelphia, and continued the practice of his profession. Here he was exceptionally fortunate, and in 1869 he was appointed to the vacancy in the common pleas court occasioned by the resignation of Judge Brewster. In this position he discharged his duties with marked ability, and in the following October was elected to serve a regular term. In 1874 he was elected to a seat in the supreme court of the state, where he has not only sustained the excellent reputation gained’ in the lower court, but has won new distinction.(4*)

The causes célèbres of the Bucks county courts are all found in the criminal calendar, and the one of widest notoriety was occasioned by the poisoning of Doctor William Chapman, of Bensalem, in May, 1831. The victim of the tragedy was at this time living with his wife and four or five children at Andalusia, engaged in conducting a boarding-school, which enjoyed a more than local reputation for excellence. Doctor Chapman was a man of more than ordinary intelligence and culture, amiable and gentlemanly in manner, kindly in temper and speech, and held in universal esteem by all who knew him. His wife was a woman of considerable culture and social grace, and the daughter of General Winslow, of Massachusetts, a soldier of the revolution. On the 9th of May, a Spaniard, who gave his name as Mina, came to the house and besought a night’s lodging. After some slight demur on the part of Mr. Chapman, his wife said the "traveller’s bed" was in order, and the fellow might as well remain, and the matter was ended accordingly. After supper the stranger entertained the family with preposterous stories of his adventures, of his misfortunes, gentle birth, and wealthy parents. It is astonishing that they did not create suspicion of his true character, but, on the contrary, they evidently excited an unfortunate influence upon Mrs. Chapman, who proposed, when alone with her husband, to take the stranger in the family carriage to Bordentown in search of a friend he professed to have there. On this trip the woman became strangely infatuated with the adventurer, and notwithstanding, as it afterward appeared, that she was assured by the Mexican consul at Philadelphia that the fellow was an impostor, brought him back with her and announced to her husband that the fellow was to remain in the household and be instructed in the English language. After this Mina and the infatuated woman became so intimate as to excite a deep feeling of uneasiness in the mind of Mr. Chapman, which he expressed on one occasion to a book-agent at the house.

Not long after the introduction of the Spaniard into the family, Mr. Chapman was taken sick, and was treated by his physician for cholera-morbus. The next day he was found recovered from the attack, and apparently beyond the need of further medical care. Mrs. Chapman, however, after administering a bowl of chicken soup which she and Mina had prepared with "seasoning from the parlor cupboard," attended the church of which she was a member, and asked the prayers of the people for her husband whom she feared was fatally ill. On her return from church she found her husband in terrible agony, with every symptom of arsenical poisoning, in which condition he remained until his death, a few hours later. His physician was astounded at his sudden death, but no suspicion of murder was entertained, and in due time the remains were buried. On Tuesday of the following week Mina and Mrs. Chapman were secretly married at Syracuse, New York, and returned to Andalusia, where the wretched woman doubtless hoped to realize the brilliant vision of wealth which the Spaniard’s stories had conjured up in her imagination. Her illusion was short-lived, however. Almost immediately the graceless scoundrel, stripping her of her money and jewels, fled to parts unknown.

In the meantime the book-agent informed the authorities of his suspicions in the case, and sufficient cause was soon found for the arrest of both actors in the tragedy. Thomas Ross and William B. Reed, of Philadelphia, represented the commonwealth; David Paul Brown and Peter McCall, both of Philadelphia, defended Mrs. Chapman; and Samuel Rush, of Philadelphia, and E.P. McDowell defended Mina. Mrs. Chapman was indicted as principal, and was first tried, but after a closely contested trial the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty," after some three hours’ deliberation. The trial of Mina followed, and a contrary verdict was rendered after a deliberation of about the same length. The unbiased judgment now is that but one verdict was just, and that, carried away by the rhetorical effort of David Paul Brown, the jury gave a verdict according to the eloquent lawyer’s plea, and not according to the evidence. The elder children of Mrs. Chapman seem to have believed her guilty from the time of her arrest, and only her youngest, a daughter nine or ten years, remained with her. The unhappy woman subsequently traveled about the country, giving recitations as a means of livelihood, and henceforth until the time of her death, bereft of friends, reputation, and home, wandered upon the face of the earth, like Cain, with an ineffaceable mark upon her, She died in Florida some twenty years later,

Liano Amelio Nepos y Mina, as he is named in the indictment, was refused a new trial, and was sentenced to the extreme penalty of the law. No doubt of his guilt was entertained by any one informed of the matter. He made a confession to a police officer of Philadelphia, and made several attempts to escape his fate. In November, 1831, he effected his escape from the old Doylestown jail by sawing off the rivet of his chain and then breaking and burning his way to the outside world. It is said that the sheriff and his posse overtook the fugitive a short distance from the county seat, and that the officer, diverting the attention of his attendants, gave Mina money and directions to effect his escape. However that may be, he was captured some days afterward by W.S. Hendric and John O. James, and brought back to jail. After his conviction he made three attempts at suicide, twice by opening a vein in his arm, and once by swallowing broken glass, but all in vain. His execution occurred on June 21, 1832, on the almshouse property, and was witnessed by a crowd of people estimated at ten thousand persons. Fourteen companies of infantry and six of cavalry of the militia were in attendance. General William T. Rogers, with a detachment of militia, escorted the prisoner and officials to the place of execution. On this long, tedious ride the prisoner maintained an air of perfect nonchalance, bowing and smiling to those he recognized, and conversing in his ordinary manner with his spiritual adviser and counsel who accompanied him. At eleven o’clock the death-warrant was read, and the prisoner followed it with a speech in Spanish, in which he declared his innocence, and expressed his forgiveness of those who had secured his conviction. He expressed some resentment at the final preparations, but passed the supreme moment with remarkable fortitude. At noon it was all over.

Scarcely second to the cause just described was the one in which Josiah Blundin was tried for the murder of Aaron Cuttlehow. The latter was killed on Sunday, July 27, 1834, on the way from the oats-field of Samuel Headley, near Bristol. The trial took place on September 13, 1834. The facts as developed at the trial were briefly reported as follows:

The prisoner and deceased were at work on Sunday, July 27th, with other men, five or six, engaged in cradling oats. At dinner one of the hands ran out of doors with a pie, deceased and the prisoner chasing him. In their playfulness a shoe was thrown which hit the prisoner. Shortly afterward the deceased came into the house crying, and said the prisoner had hit him on the head with a stone. This disturbance was settled, and they all went to the field to cradle oats. When nearly done a quarrel arose between the prisoner and the deceased, and the prisoner was thrown down and received several blows from deceased in the face. The deceased with another then helped him upon his feet, and his knees giving way under him, they assisted him up a second time. The prisoner then took his cradle and started for home. He was asked to ride twice, but refused, and said, angrily, he would walk. From fifteen minutes to half an hour later he was overtaken by the wagon, walking slowly. He was asked to get up and ride. The prisoner made no reply, but raised his cradle from his shoulder and struck at the deceased, hitting the cradle of the deceased which he raised to guard the blow; the deceased at the same time losing his cradle from his hand, which fell upon the ground. The deceased (Cuttlehow) then sprang from the wagon to make his escape, but stumbled and fell as he reached the ground. When he had crawled a few paces the prisoner came upon him with his cradle uplifted and struck the scythe through the neck of Cuttlehow. The latter cried, "Take it out, take it out!" sank on the ground and died in one or two minutes. Some one said to the prisoner: "He will die," who replied: "Let him die." Liquor had been used in the field, but there was no satisfactory evidence that the prisoner was intoxicated. The jury was out eleven or twelve hours, and returned a verdict of murder in the first degree.

The prosecution was conducted by Charles E. Du Bois, the deputy attorney-general of that time, assisted by Caleb E. Wright. The defense was in the hands of Thomas Ross and E.T. McDowell. The main effort of the defense was to show time absence of premeditation, as the fact of the killing could not be questioned. The prisoner’s counsel made a motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial, but both were overruled by Judge Fox after hearing the argument. The prisoner made no manifestation of emotion on receiving his sentence, but the people at large were not satisfied with the verdict, and the papers published numerous communications from different contributors, indicating the adverse sentiment of the community. An earnest effort was made to have the sentence commuted to imprisonment for life, and a committee of the legislature, composed of Bucks county members, was appointed on the subject. The committee reported against the application, and the power of the governor to do so was doubted at that time. The governor respited Blundin three times, the last of which expired on Friday, August 14, 1835.

On a Sunday in May Blundin attempted to make his escape from the jail. He managed to cut off the rivets of his hopples, burn a hole through the floor, and, after gaining the jail-yard, attempted, by means of a rope formed of his bedding, to scale the outer wall. The fastenings gave way when the prisoner was near the top and he fell to the ground, where he lay in a bruised and helpless condition until found in the morning by the sheriff. Such was the sympathy of the public that a rumor that the sheriff left the means of escape within reach of the prisoner and then left the building to give him an opportunity to use them, obtained general credence and no marked disapproval. The unfortunate man was carried back to his cell and on the day appointed by the governor’s last respite was executed in the yard of the jail. The prisoner was unable to stand on account of his injuries, but he met his fate with resignation and courage.

On August 11, 1855, Jacob Armbruster was arrested in Nockamixon for the murder of his wife. His trial occurred in the following month, the prisoner was convicted, and sentenced by Judge Smyser to be hanged. The sentence was carried out on Friday, February 15, 1856. The duty of the officiating sheriff was particularly unpleasant in this case. The prisoner protested his innocence to the last, declared that he had been convicted upon the evidence of children, and expressed a determination to resist all attempts to put the sentence in execution. No effort of his spiritual advisers could induce him to prepare for death, and the last scene was painful in time extreme. The wild, frantic rage of the victim made the sad duties of the officers in charge an experience never to be forgotten by those who participated.

The last on this list of the capital crimes of the county is that of Albert Teufel in 1866. James Wiley was the captain of the canal-boat "Ohio." He was at Trenton, New Jersey, November 23, 1866, and received a check for a sum of money due him there. Teufel met him, and was permitted to accompany him in the boat up the river. Besides these two, Harman Rick, the driver, was on the boat up to the "six-mile level." The boat was fastened at the "Narrows" lock, and on the morning of the 24th Wiley’s body was found lying in the cabin, horribly mutilated and with life extinct. On the trial of Teufel for the crime the defense urged that the prisoner might have killed Wiley in self-defense; that both were probably under the influence of liquor; that the convicting witness, Rick, had given conflicting testimony before the coroner and the court; and that the prisoner had remained in the vicinity of the crime, instead of fleeing from it. The prosecution met these particulars by showing that Teufel was unhurt, and that the altercation was too one-sided to admit the plea of defense; that the murdered man was robbed; that the prisoner first confessed and then denied his agency in the matter; and that Rick gave his first testimony under fear and impeached it himself. The jury, after a deliberation of about three hours, brought in a verdict of guilty. The trial was held on the 18th of February, 1867, the prisoner was sentenced the following day, and executed on Thursday, April 18, 1867. Robert L. Cope. the district attorney, assisted by George Ross, conducted the prosecution, and Elias Carver, assisted by Richard Watson, conducted the defense.

* It was also provided at this session of the assembly, "That if any person shall pretend his Debt, or Damages, to be above five lbs. and upon hearing thereof, it shall appear to the Court to be under that Value, In all Such eases, The plaintiff shall lose his action, and pay the defendant and the costs. But the plaintiff shall have liberty to withdraw his action, and be non-suited if hee See Cause, before the Jury have given in their Verdict; yet so us he pay the full cost and charges to the defendant." This act was included in the general abrogation in 1693 and was not subsequently restored.

** In 16S6 Arthur Cook and James Harrison were appointed as two of the three judges of the provincial court. In 1690 Arthur Cook and Joseph Growden were similarly chosen, and in 1706 the latter was again appointed. In 1726 Jeremiah Langhorne was appointed "third judge" of the provincial court, and in 1731 as "second justice," and subsequently as "chief-justice" of the supreme court. Prior to 1706 the members of the supreme court served without a fixed salary. At this time the chief-justice, through an informal arrangement with James Logan, received one hundred pounds per annum, but this was discontinued before the expiration of the year. "The matter being largely discoursed, it was the opinion of the board that the office of Chief-Justice of the Govmt. ought to be attended with salary, but that it could not be thought reasonable that the Propr. should support the charge out of his Demesnes, nor yet that the Govr. should pay it out of what belong’d to him, but that the most proper measures should be thought of for raising such a salary, or find sufficient Encouragement for the future, But that for the time past whatever had been promised the Judge. ought to be performed." The assembly subsequently provided "suitable" remuneration.

*** "At a court of Common Pleas held at ye Court House ye 14th day of monte 1694."

(4*) The roster of the bench and bar may be found in the Appendix.