First Jury Drawn in Early Courts of Province on November 12, 1678

The early judicial history of Pennsylvania presents striking features of interest to two classes in the community—the professional lawyer and the student of history.

To the former it must be a matter of curiosity and interest to study the first rude means devised to administer justice between man and man—to discern among the transactions of those early times the rise and development of institutions and practices.

But to the student of history the subject affords a different kind of interest. He finds gratification in the manner, customs and modes of thought once prevalent in these early courts.

In them he finds traces of the past life of the Nation, learns of the matters which then interested the people, the nature of their industries, the extent of their commerce, the character of their education, the attention paid to their morals, and even the depth of their religious convictions.

792The early courts of what is now Pennsylvania had their origin in 1673, under the government of James, Duke of York.

After the Swedish settlements on the Delaware were conquered by the Dutch, the Swedes were directed to concentrate in villages, but they never did so. Among the places named for this purpose was Upland, now Chester.

The Swedish magistrates were permitted to remain in office—a conciliatory policy which was imitated by the English when they came into possession of Pennsylvania.

The Dutch divided the western shore of the Delaware into three counties or judicial districts, the most northern of which was called Ophlandt, its capital being Upland. This division was recognized and continued by the English.

In 1676, under Governor Andross, the Magistrates of Upland were Peter Cock (Cox), Peter Rambo, Israel Helm, Lace Andries, Oele Swen, and Otto Ernest Cock, all Swedes.

At the court at Upland, November 13, 1677, Captain Hans Jargin was ordered “to fit up the House of Defense for the use of the court at its next sitting.” The court previously had been holding its sessions at the house of Neeles Laersen, who kept a tavern, a troublesome fellow, whose daughter seems to have taken after her father, both having appeared several times in court.

On November 12, 1678, complaint was made against Laersen for building a fence which stopped the usual path of travel over the meadow. The Court ordered him to remove the obstruction.

At the same session of court the case of William Orian vs. John D'haes was called. It was an action on a book account for the sum of 167 guilders, and the first jury known to have been called in Pennsylvania was impaneled.

The names of these original jurymen were Hans Moens, Dunk Williams, Xtopper Barnes, Edmund Draufton, Peter Jockum, Isaac Sanoy, Jan Hendricks, Jonas Kien, Moens Cock, John Browne, Jan Boelson and Henry Hastings.

The verdict was for the plaintiff for the full amount of his claim which had been disputed.

These early county courts were vested with criminal jurisdiction in all save cases of heinous or enormous crimes. Treason, murder and manslaughter were outside their cognizance. Trials for larceny, swearing, laboring on the first day of the week, assault and battery, shooting or maiming the prosecutor’s hogs, unduly encouraging drunkenness, selling rum to the Indians and offenses against the public morality and decency constituted the great bulk of the criminal business.

“Lying in conversation” was fined half a crown, “drinking healths which may provoke people to unnecessary and excessive drinking” was fined five shillings, while the sale of beer made of molasses at more than 793a penny a quart was visited with a like penalty of five shillings for every quart sold.

No person could “Smoak tobacco in the streets of Philadelphia or New Castle, by day or by night,” on penalty of a fine of twelve pence, to be applied to the purchase of leather buckets and other instruments against fire.

Any person “convicted at playing of cards, dice, lotteries or such-like enticing, vain and evil sports and games” was to pay five shillings or to be imprisoned five days at hard labor, while those who introduced or frequented “such rude and riotous sports and practices as prizes, stage plays, masques, revels, bull baitings, cock fightings and the like” were either to forfeit twenty shillings or to be imprisoned at hard labor for ten days.

Smoking tobacco in the courtroom was an heinous offense. Luke Watson, himself a Justice, twice offended the Court on the same day in this manner and was fined the first time fifty pounds of tobacco, the second 100 pounds. In 1687 William Bradford was fined for swearing in the presence of the Justices, and Thomas Hasellum was fined for singing and making a noise.

Thomas Jones, who was wanted in court as a witness, was a hardened character and refused to appear. When two constables brought him into court he cursed at a horrible rate.

The records state “said Jones being brought into court, the Court told him of his misdemeanor, and told him he should suffer for it; he told the Court he questioned their power, so the Court ordered the Sheriff and constable to secure him and they carried and dragged him to ye Smith Shop, where they put irons upon him, but he quickly got the Irons off and Escaped, he having before wounded several persons’ legs with his spurs that strived with him, and when they was goeinggoeing to put him in the Stocks, before that they put him in Irons, he kicked the Sheriff on the mouth and was very unruly and abusive, and soon got out of the Stocks.”

An excellent law in the early days of the Province provided “that whereas there was a necessity for the sake of commerce in this infancy of things, that the growth and produce of this Province should pass in lieu of money, that, therefore, all merchantable wheat, rye, Indian corn, barley, oats, pork, beef and tobacco should pass current at the market price.”

Of this provision the people availed themselves largely. They frequently gave bonds to each other acknowledging their debts in kinds. Judgments were accordingly sometimes entered “for 172 pounds of pork and two bushels of wheat, being the balance of an account brought into court,” or for “32 shillings for a gun, and 150 pounds of pork for a shirt,” while, perhaps, the climax is reached in an entry of judgment for “One thousand of six-penny nails, and three bottles of rum.”

794The early Provincial Courts were unusual peace makers and made peculiar awards.

In Chester County, in 1687, in an action of an assault and battery by Samuel Baker against Samuel Rowland was this award: “Samuel Rowland shall pay the lawful charges of this court, and give the said Samuel Baker a Hatt, and so Discharge each other of all manner of Differences from the Beginning of the World to this Present day.”

The sentences imposed were not unusually severe. The whipping post, the pillory and the imposition of fines were usually resorted to as punishments in preference to long terms of imprisonment. The services of the culprit were more desirable than to keep him within a prison’s walls.