“Philadelphia, the 26th day of the 7th month, 1702. "We, the Grand Inquest for this Corporation, do present George Robinson, butcher, for being a parson of evill fame as a common swarer, and a common drunker, & particularly upon the twenty-third day of this instant, for swaring three oths in the market-place, & also for utering two very bad curses the twenty-sixth day of this instant. Signed in behalf of self & fellows, by "Submits, and puts himself in mercy of the Court." "Jno. Pons, ferman." "George Robinson, fined xxx s. for the oaths and curses." "Philadelphia, ss. "We, the Jurors for this city, doe present phillip Eilbeck, of Chester County, for that on the twenty-third Day of this Instant, at night, at the house of Margaret Garret, in the front street, in Philadelphia, aforsd, Did then & theire mennace & threaten herman Debeck, by drawing his bagenet and making a pass at him, the said herman: & at the same time & place abovesaid, did utter three curses, to the terrifiding of the said herman & other the Qeen's Leige people, contrary to the laws in that case made & provided. Signed in behalf of the Rest of the Jurors, this 28th day of the 7th mo., 1702, pr. "Appears and submits, and puts himself in mercy of the Court." "Jno. Psons, forman." "Eilbeck for breach of the peace and curses, xxx s." "The 3d of the 12th mon: 1702. "We of the Grand Jury for the Citty of Philadelphia, do psent John Satell for passing of bad counterfeit Coine to Anne Simes, on the 2nd of January Last past in her husbands house, now Living in Philadelphia, & Also finding the mettal in his pocket, which we think the Money was made withall. "Signed in behalf of the Rest, "Abra. Hooper, foreman." "Philadelphia, ye 4th of the 12th mon., 1702. "We, of ye Grand Jury for the Citty of philadelphia, Do psent John Joyse, for having of to wifes at once, which is boath against the law of God and man. "Signed in behalf of the rest, "Abra. Hooper, foreman." "Philadelphia, ye 6th of the 3rd month, 1703. "We, of the Grand Jury for this city, Doe present Alexander Paxton & his wife, for letting a house to John Lovet, he being a Stranger, & have not Given security for The In Demnifying of this Corporation. "Signed in behalf of the rest, “Abra. Hooper, foreman.” “Philadelphia, this third day of November, 1703. "We doe also present Jon Furnis & Thomas McCarty & Thomas Anderson & henery Flower, barbers, for triming people on first days of the weeks, commonly called sunday, contrary to the law in that case made & provided. “Signed in behalf of the rest of the Jurors, "John Redman, foreman." In 1731 an execution took place at New Castle which, it is to be hoped, was exceptional in the annals of the colonies. Catherine Bevan, together with a servant named Peter Murphy, were indicted, tried and found guilty of the murder of the woman's husband, Henry Bevan. The conviction would seem to have been obtained principally upon the confession of the servant. By the common law at that time the murder of a husband by his wife was petit treason, and the punishment was to be drawn and burnt. Accordingly, on September 10, 1731, the man was hanged and the woman burnt pursuant to their sentences.1 A gruesome account of the 1 Such executions were not unusual in England. Sidney refers to a number, mentioned in the newspapers, including two in 1735, one in 1737, two in 1739 and one as late as 1789. Sidney's England in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. II, 299. affair appears in Franklin's "Pennsylvania Gazette" for September 23, 1731: "She deny'd to the last that she acted any part in the murder and could scarce be brought to own that she was guilty of consenting. Neither of them said much at the place of execution. The man seemed penitent but the woman appear'd hardened. It was designed to strangle her dead before the fire could touch her; but its first breaking out was in a stream which pointed directly upon the rope that went round her neck, and burnt it off instantly so that she fell alive into the flames, and was seen to struggle." To return to the courts. At a meeting of the council held on November 9, 1719, Governor Keith called attention to the repeal of the several acts relating to courts, and proposed that the board consider the best means of meeting the inconvenience caused thereby. The consensus of opinion was that the governor should issue special commissions authorizing the justices to hold court on the days when they should be held under the repealed laws. Similar action was taken in the following March in reference to the supreme court, and David Lloyd, who was now chief justice, prepared the forms of commission. In this way the courts were continued until at a meeting of the council, May 12, 1722, it was observed that the courts would be "more regularly and effectually established by ordinance, as they are done in some of our neighboring governments, than by any particular Commissions," and it was recommended that the matter be brought to the attention of the house of representatives. A bill was promptly passed and messaged to the council, where it was referred to Richard Hill, Isaac Norris, James Logan and the attorney general, Andrew Hamilton, for amendment. The bill as amended was returned to the house, and on May 22, 1722, became a law.1 1III Statutes at Large, 298. This act apparently was never considered by the Crown, but, in some manner, was allowed to become a law by lapse of time, according to the charter. The reason for its escape lies probably in an oversight of the clerks of the council rather than in any intention on the part of the board to give it even a tacit approval. The act appears in a list, under consideration by the board of trade in 1739, which the lords commissioners could not find to have ever been approved.1 Mr. Paris, the agent for the colony, after tedious searches, found some of these acts "laid up in a by corner of the Board of Trade and covered very thick with dust." In the list the act we are discussing is marked "supplied." As a matter of fact, three months before the time for its consideration had expired, the act had been supplied by the Act of August 27, 1727,2 which was repealed by order in council September 21, 1731. In repealing the latter act, the point seems to have been overlooked that the Act of 1722 was revived by the repeal, and the question of the Crown's power to pass upon it then was not raised. Upon the repeal of the Act of 1727 a special session of the assembly was called, and an act passed formally reviving the Act of 1722.3 This reviving act seems to have been allowed to become a law by lapse of time. Mr. Fane, the king's counsel, to whom it was referred by the lords commissioners, saw no objection to it. The Act of 1722, which in many of its provisions remained in force until after the Revolution, provided for county courts of quarter sessions, composed of justices appointed by the governor, three to constitute. a quorum, and for similar county courts of common pleas, to be held after the quarter sessions by justices, also appointed by the governor, with authority to hold 1 III Statutes at Large, 488. 2 IV Statutes at Large, 84. 3 November 27, 1731, IV Statutes at Large, 229. pleas of assizes, scire facias, replevins and all manner of actions, civil, personal, real and mixed, and to grant writs of partition and writs of view. As to the supreme court, the Act of 1722 provided as follows: “And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That there shall be holden and kept at Philadelphia a court of record twice in every year: (That is to say) on the twenty-fourth day of September and the tenth day of April, if the same days, or either, do not happen to be the First day of the week, and in such case the said court shall be held on the next day following; which said court shall be called and styled the supreme court of Pennsylvania. And that there shall be three persons of known integrity and ability, commissionated by the governor, or his lieutenant for the time being, by several distinct patents or commissions, under the great seal of this province, to be judges of the said court, one of whom shall be distinguished in his commission by the name of chief-justice. And every of the said justices shall have full power and authority, by virtue of this act, when and as often as there may be occasion, to issue forth writs of habeas corpus, certiorari and writs of error, and all remedial and other writs and process returnable to the said court, and grantable by the said judges by virtue of their office, in pursuance of the powers and authorities hereby given them. "Provided always, That upon (any) issue joined in the said supreme court, such issue shall be tried in the county from whence the cause was removed, before the judges aforesaid, or any two of them, who are hereby empowered and required, if occasion require, to go the circuit twice in every year, * * * * and to do generally all those things that shall be necessary for the trial of any issue, as fully as justices of nisi prius in England may or can do. “And that the said judges, or any two of them, shall have full power to hold the said court, and therein to hear and determine all causes, matters and things, cognizable in the said court, and also to hear and determine all and all manner of pleas, plaints and causes, which shall be removed or brought there from the respective (general) quartersessions of the peace and courts of common pleas, to be held for the respective counties of Philadelphia, Chester and Bucks, as also for the city of Philadelphia, or from any other court of this province, by virtue of any of the |