Here comes the judge

 The office of justice of the peace began in England sometime in the 12th century, when the king appointed mostly knights to keep the peace. In the 14th century a law was passed creating "conservators of the peace," who eventually came to be called justices of the peace. Also called magistrates, these were men -- unsurprisingly, given the times -- who were the first-line legal authorities in the counties they served. 

Although not exactly police, who pretty much didn't exist except in the office of sheriff, they were responsible for dealing with miscreants when complaints were lodged. They operated pretty much under their own authority, hearing the complaints and deciding what would happen if they decided the accused was guilty.

The American office developed from this English legacy, as the English colonists followed what they knew when they arrived and set up shop. JPs were mostly elected, though governors of the colonies, and later the states, were sometimes empowered to appoint them.

As elected officials, they usually attained and held office because they were prominent in their communities and held in high regard. They were not required to have legal training and most often did not. This latter non-requirement still holds in Texas, although once elected JPs can attend a state-sponsored training event to better understand what their duties are and what the rudiments of the law are for the type cases they hear. 

I served on a jury trial in a JP court once, a fairly rare occurrence I think, and remember one of the attorneys objecting to something the other attorney said. The JP ruled against him, and the attorney tried to school the justice on the legal basis for the objection. The JP stood pat. 

The attorney asked why he wouldn't change his ruling, and he replied, "My court; my rules." The attorney then indicated his intention to appeal the outcome of the case should he lose, which he did, and the justice said, "Suit yourself."

An article at law.jrank.org states that "These early colonial justices firmly believed their main role was to enforce God's plan. Their aim was to force a confession from the accused and make them repent (apologize for) their sins. The goal was not necessarily punishment, but confession and bringing order back to the society. If a defendant requested a jury, he or she was viewed as disrespectful of the judge's authority. Many defendants favored not having a jury as they preferred to rely on the mercy of a judge who was often more interested in seeing that the accused give in to his authority than to provide justice."

Although jury trials were rare, when they did occur, the panel consisted of six persons drawn from the court's regular jury list.

By the early 1800s, when my great-great-great-great grandfather Gershom Morse served as a JP, justices handled a variety of civil and criminal matters, such as drunkenness, adultery, price evasion (selling below a minimum price fixed by law), and public disorder. Justices of the peace also served as county court staff members and heard grand jury and civil cases. The increasing number of criminal, slave, and tax statutes that were passed during the 1800s also broadened the enforcement powers of the justice of the peace.

As a side note, while researching this post, I ran across a book on the "Judicial and Civil History of Connecticut," written in 1895, which contains a chapter on obsolete laws. One of the laws mentioned dealt with the law concerning incest. The original punishment was severe -- from whipping un to death -- but was later modified. The modification? The convicted couple had to wear a large "I" on their clothing when in public. So if you ever wondered about "The Scarlet Letter," it probably was an actual law.

I said in the last post that I would give a couple of Gershom's other rulings, contained in "Historical Sketches of Moravia. So hear we go. Again, I quote from the book.

April 2, 1807

Summons given to Asa Little [Gershom's brother-in-law], constable, in favor of E. Patty, against James Powers, returnable the 10th instant, at 1 o'clock, afternoon, a subpoena given for three evidence. The Court called, the parties present; the plaintiff throws his charge, which was, James Powers to E. Patty, to damage done to a two year old heifer; done by his dog, for which the said Patty charges ten dollars.

The defendant pleads for a non-suit on account of a Sheriff's extension being levied on the heifer, the plea not granted. 

[The parties agreed to have three men settle the case for them out of court, and after some discussion about who they would be, the three, who included Gershom, decided in favor of Patty, with Powers owing $5.]

The court record included the court costs for another case, though not the details, held Dec. 28, 1808:

"Summons: 9 cents
Constable fee: 78 cents
Adjournment: 9 cents
Venire: 12 1/2 cents
Constable serving venire: 37 1/2 cents
Swearing jury: 12 1/2 cents
Subpoena: 6 cents
Judgement: 12 1/2 cents
[Sub]total: $1.77
Verdict of jury: $7.35
Total: $9.12

'To be paid out of the above judgment to Cady's Tavern, for one pint of whiskey': 19 cents

Total: $9.31"

Wouldn't you just love to know what the deal was with the whiskey?