should constitute a quorum, and for trial terms to be holden by one or more of the judges, each once in each year in each county; and for adjourning actions from the trial to the law terms on exceptions reduced to writing, "in a summary way," and allowed by the judge or judges during the term. The law term was to render such judgment or make such order or direction therein as to law and justice should appertain.* This system continued until 1821, when this mode of review was taken away, and all decisions were left to be made at the trial. In that year each of the judges of the supreme court as chancellor was authorized to make interlocutory orders in chancery cases preparatory to final hearing in vacation.† Up to 1824 cases were taken from the county to the supreme court only by appeal, and the cases were tried there anew, with the right to review in the supreme court from 1814 to 1821 on exceptions as stated. In that year all appeals were taken away except on questions of law placed upon the record, and trials of questions of fact were remanded to the county court. And the county courts were constituted of a judge of the supreme court as chief judge and two county judges as assistants. The supreme court remained the court of chancery until 1839, and there no appeals in chancery. After that there was a court of chancery consisting of one judge, as chancellor, sitting at the same times as the county courts in each county, with appeals from all decrees to the supreme court. From 1850 to 1857, the supreme court consisted of three judges, and the county courts were composed of a circuit judge, who was a chancellor, and two county judges. Since then the system of having the same judges sit at nisi prius trials and in *Laws of 1814, chap. 117. banc in review, which is doubtless the best system attainable for administering justice, as now, has been in operation. After the admission of the state into the Union, the federal courts for the district were organized. The record shows that the circuit court commenced its sessions on the 25th day of June, 1792, at Bennington, and that there were: Present, "The hon. John Jay, Chief Justice Supreme Court United States. "The hon. William Cushing, Associate Justice Supreme Court United States. "The hon. Nathaniel Chipman, District Judge Vermont District." F. Hill was appointed clerk. As the law then stood the circuit courts were constituted of two justices of the supreme court and the district judge. There were no published reports of the decisions of the superior court. The cases before it were largely criminal, and many of the offenses were of a political character. The prosecutions were in the name of the freemen. Many cases were for slanderous words. In one case the words spoken were that the plaintiff "claimed protection of Burgoyne." Question was made, but these words were promptly held to be actionable. In another case the proceedings were commenced in criminal form. Objection was made by Nathaniel Chipman, counsel for the defendant, that damages for private injury could not be recovered in that manner. This objection was at once overruled, and the plaintiff had a verdict and judgment for damages to a large amount. The library of Charles Phelps was confiscated, and Abel Stockwell, constable of Marlborough, went to take the books. Mr. Phelps and his son Timothy drove the constable off with a pitchfork. The constable of Brattleboro went soon after with assistance and took the law books, but left his theological books. Stockwell brought suit against the Phelpses for the assault, in the superior court, laying the damages at £3000. The writ was in manuscript, folded in the usual form. The plea of Charles Phelps is written upon one of the folds. It runs : "At August Term 1780 Comes into Court the within named Defendants and Justify his assaulting the plaintiff in Defence of his property being by force & arms attempted to be taken from him by the said pltff there being no redress provided and to be obtained by Law, and being a subject in and of the State of New York where there has been in fact a state of nature, and no redress of any grievance could be had by law for more than five years last past before said assault pretended was made; therefore by the Law of nature & nations might, and by the Law of the Country he the defendant could avail himself against which he is ready to verify and of this he prays it be considered by the Court.' This plea was withdrawn, a default was entered, and the defendant heard in damages, which were assessed at £700, about $3,400. Damages were solvable in continental money, which on that day was worth one dollar for $100, so that the actual damages assessed were about $34. Among the books taken were some belonging to Solomon Phelps. He petitioned the superior court for their return. The last act of that court in that county was to grant the return to him of '“Salkelds Reports 1 Vol. Milton's Paradise lost Telemachus 2 Vol's L'd Bakon's Essay, and such other books as the sd Sol'n Phelps's name is inserted in." During the time when cases in the supreme court were either originally brought there, or taken there by appeal and tried de novo, and not heard upon exceptions to matters of law, there were no official reporters of its decisions. This covers the time from 1783 to 1814. Nathaniel Chipman however reported a few cases arising in 1789, 1790, and 1791. The case of Freeman vs. Prouty, in 1784, has been sometimes referred to in books on criminal law. The respondent was indicted and tried for burglary upon the house of Luke Knowlton. The verdict was: "The jury in this case find that the prisoner did break and enter the house of Luke Knowlton Esq. in the night season, and did take and carry away the said Luke Knowlton, and if that breaking a house and taking and carrying away a person as aforesaid amounts to burglary we say he is guilty, if not, we say he is not guilty." The judgment of the court on this verdict was not guilty. Tyler's reports are of cases in 1800-1, 2, and 3, and Brayton's of cases from 1815 to 1819. An act was passed in 1823, providing for the appointment of a reporter, and making it his duty to publish such of the former decisions of the supreme court as he should judge proper. Daniel Chipman was appointed. His first volume is taken up largely with the reports of cases when the nisi prius system prevailed from 1814 to 1821; he included, however, a few of the cases reported by Nathaniel Chipman, and cases after that system was abolished, in 1822-3, and early in 1824. His second volume consists of cases in 1824. Aikens's reports cover cases in 1825-6 and 7. The judges reported the cases from 1826 to 1837 in the first nine volumes of Vermont Reports. Since then there has been a regular series of reports by an official reporter. PAPER BY GEORGE W. HARMAN. Western Vermont's First Lawyer, John Burnam. The territory now comprising the state of Vermont was never the home or abiding place of the aborigines of America. Its pure and sparkling waters afforded a full supply of fish, and its lofty forests, grown from deep and rich soils, furnished game abundant for both food and clothing. To satisfy their wants in these respects, the Indians roamed over the length and breadth of the land, angling in its waters and hunting amid its forests. And when the white men had established themselves upon the shores of Massachusetts Bay and had extended their settlements to the banks of the Connecticut River, this territory afforded a covert whence the wily Indians, sometimes impelled by the politic French, emerged, and rushed with destructive fury upon the English settlements. At length came the conflict between the two European powers, each of whom had been trying to circumvent the other, and thereby to gain the control of the whole country from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to that of Mexico. And, soon after the 13th day of September, 1759, when that eloquent, brave, and skillful general, James Wolfe, "died victorious" upon the plains |