This act stood, till January, 1798-that is, rather more than one year. It was then amended-not very materially changed: and provision made "for appointing a collector of the taxes;" in case the sheriff failed to give bond and security. The coun ty court had the appointment; and were to require bond, &c. This act occupied about two pages, and six sections. It was principally employed in adjusting matters with nonresidents, and the owners of billiard tables.

In the fall session of 1799, this subject, was again taken up, and a new act passed, entitled, "An act to amend and reduce into one the several acts establishing a permanent revenue." It is the title of the act of 1796; and doubtless, a repetition of most of the provisions of it; although in a new dress. The act fills seventeen pages in the usual large octavo. All repetitions will be avoided; while new objects only, will be noticed.

Cut money, might be received for taxes-under the impres sion, it was said, that it would domesticate it, and keep it in the country-it was however to be weighed; a most troublesome, and impracticable operation, to most people; of course, it was not done: while the effect was to depreciate the coin, by rather encouraging the practice, but two frequent, of cutting dollars; in order to obtain five, instead of four quarters. A consequence, was, that cut quarters, passed, for about twenty cents, as soon as they left the state—and which compelled merchants, and others, who acquired large sums of it, to dispose of it as bullion-after adjusting their prices to it, or it, to their prices, at home; where the fifth was often denied to be the fourth.

The register was authorized to sell lands of nonresidents, for a failure to pay the taxes-and both him, and the sheriff, to convey, to purchasers.

It is to be remarked, that the new constitution formed, in this year, took effect in the next-which will be made an epoch; and this subject again renewed, with the view of presenting a connected series of legislation in relation to it, down to the present year.

The system of courts, established in 1792, and also subsequent variations, so far as seems necessary to general history, will next engage attention; and may elicit remark.

To begin with the act to establish the court of appeals-it was to consist of three judges; one of whom was to be styled, "chief justice of Kentucky;" another, "the second judge;" and the other, "the third judge;" any two, were to form a quorum. They were each required to swear, or affirm, solemnly, in form, as follows:

"I, (naming himself) will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as a judge of the court of appeals, according to the best of my ability and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of Kentucky."

The court, was to hold two sessions, or terms, in each year; one, the first Monday, of May, the other, of October; which might, if necessary, continue thirty juridical days: and if the judges saw cause, they could prolong the term, for the des patch of business. They were to appoint their own clerk, who was to take an oath, and give bond, for the performance of his duties; under the inspection of the judges; one of whom was annually to examine his office, to see that it was well kept. The sheriff, was assigned as an officer of the court, and was to attend its sittings, by himself, or one of his deputies.

No discontinuance was to result from any failure of a quorum to attend.

The court, had power to direct the forms of writs and process-and to send writs of mandamus, &c. to inferior courts. It had original jurisdiction, according to the constitution; of which notice has already been taken.

The appellate jurisdiction of the court, extended to cases previously decided in the district court, and courts of quarter sessions, under the Virginia administration-as well as to those taken by appeal, or writ of error, from the courts of Kentucky: and rules were prescribed for conducting the business. At the next session of the legistature, an additional term, was authorized.

The original jurisdiction of the court, was taken from it, in 1795, and vested in district courts-hereafter to be further noticed.

In 1796, the court, without any previous defect of authority, except that the original jurisdiction had been withdrawn; was established, by a new act, with the title of "An act establishing the court of appeals." Which appears to be literally copied from the first--omitting from the act, what appertained to the original jurisdiction; it even required, the oath, of the judges, and that they should appoint a clerk; who was to take an oath, and give bond, as by the first act:--it also gives jurisdiction, and prescribes the rules for conducting business; and contains the properties of an original law-which had the effect, it is believed, of repealing the existing law, and of producing a new commission to the judges. Nor is such a legislative anomaly, the less remarkable, for containing no repealing clause, as to former acts.

Three sessions were ordered, to be held in May, July, and October.

The court, or rather clerk's office, was made a place, for recording deeds, powers of attorney, and other writings; which might be acknowledged before the clerk, and recorded in his office, for the whole state. A provision of great convenience, to those who held lands in different parts of the state, and desired to convey them.

In 1797, no amendment was made; but in the year 1798, there was an amendatory act. It required, the production of records, in cases of appeal; which were to be filed within a given time; and prescribed other rules of practice. In 1799, the law of the court, was further amended, by varying sundry rules of practice--which, however vexatious to the court, or the lawyers, were of no great public convenience, or detriment, to any others.

Being the last act on the subject, under the first constitution, the theme will be no further pursued, for the present.

The attention of the reader will be turned back to the session of June, 1792; and particularly to the consideration of "An act establishing county courts, courts of quarter sessions, and a court of øyer and terminer."

The title of this act, suggests the aggregate idea of a judicial system; prudent at the time, as there was nothing new, or strange, in it, to disturb the popular ear; but otherwise it was rather accommodated to the original jurisdiction vested in the court of appeals, than an able and enlightened distribution of the judicial power of the commonwealth. It had its models in the Virginia system of courts; which were familiar in Kentucky-but the state of land claims here, was such, so multifarious, and ramified, interesting, and important, as to produce a state of case, which of all others, should have been consulted-of which Virginia afforded no example-to which, she had not adapted her jurisprudence-and which required to be relieved, by remedies, well selected, of potent efficacy, and speedy application. In a few plain words, the numerous, and multiplying disputes, about land titles, which disquieted domestic peace, heated neighbourhood feelings, and infected social intercourse; should have been a first object of legislation; demanding a temporary sacrifice of every other interfering object, or consideration, until the country was relieved. This was to be done only, by a proper judicial system; which should have placed a competent court, in each county; with sessions, limited alone, by the business before them. Unfortunately for the country, however, the groundwork of a different system, was laid in the constitution, by an attempt to draw all the business of that kind, to a court of appeals, with original jurisdiction: while the great and essential interests of the commonwealth, "the speedy adjustment of land claims," were bent, and bowed down to the dust, from motives of lucre, in one or two popular lawyers; and their dupes-who, in their turn, duped others. These are not new ideas-they were suggested, and made public at the time; objections stated, consequences detailed, illustrated, and proved; then to no purpose, but afterwards, in practice, demonstrated.

Nothing was done on this interesting subject by the court, who alone had jurisdiction, in 1792. In 1798, there were four cases decided, to-wit: Parmenas Briscoe, vs. James Speed;

Peter Consilla, vs. Parmenas Briscoe; Thomas Swearingen, vs. Parmenas Briscoe; and William Eagan, vs. Samuel Hinch and others. In 1794, three cases were decided, viz: Thomas Whit ledge, vs. Thomas McClanahan; Hannah Miller, &c. vs. The heirs of Arthur Fox; and Benjamin Fry, vs. John Essry. In 1795, five cases were decided, viz: George Bryan, &e. vs. John Bradford and Andrew Gatewood; Joel Jackson, &c. vs. George Wilson and others; Brackett Owens, &c. vs. Aquilla Whitaker and another; John Smith, vs. Nathaniel Evans; and Alexander Sinclair, vs. Christopher Singleton. That is, in all, twelve cases, were determined, down to the close of the year 1795; which terminated this erratic course, and offered one that was new-yet to be organized, and systematized, by practice. But more of this hereafter.

At present, the title of the act which has been quoted, recalls the attention to the courts, at first adopted.

A county court, or court, in each county, to be composed of the justices of the peace, for each county respectively, was established. There were at the time thirteen counties-the number of justices, was from eight to sixteen; having some regard to population, but pursuing no rule: any two of three, to be appointed for that purpose, were to compose “a court of QUARTER SESSIONS, and any other two, a COUNTY COURT, and to do the whole business as such, until otherwise provided, by law." No particular qualification was necessary to become a justice of the peace-but he was required to take the oath prescribed in the constitution, before he entered on the execution, of his official duties.

Justices of the peace, were, collectively and respectively, conservators of the peace in their counties-they had jurisdiction, severally, "of all causes of less value than five pounds current money, or one thousand pounds of tobacco:" if judgment was for less than one half of either, it was final; if for more than fifty shillings, or five hundred pounds of tobacco, an appeal lay to the court of quarter sessions. They could issue attachments, within the same limits, to arrest the goods of absconding defendants, at the instance of a plaintiff, on oath, "that the