ill their return, they were masters of that portion
of their time most suitable for dissipation and crime. The extent of
their depredations, and the deliberation with which they were performed,
indicated an extensive confederacy. The subordinate police, prone to
connive with offenders, was ill-regulated and insufficient. Goods were
carried off in masses: bags of sugar and chests of tea were abstracted
from the stores; cart loads of property were swept off at once. The
habits of the populace were daring, profane, and intemperate; and to
coerce such materials into order, required the utmost vigour and
discretion.[144]

The chief justice, John Lewes Pedder, Esq., brought from Great Britain
the charter of the supreme court, which was proclaimed in the
market-place on the 7th May, 1824. On the 24th of the same month, the
court opened for business, and Joseph Tice Gellibrand presented his
commission as attorney-general. In his opening speech he declared his
resolution to adopt the maxims of the illustrious Hale. He eulogised the
jurisprudence of his country, and especially trial by jury; but the
military uniform which appeared in court, if it did not lesson its
utility, deprived the institution of its grace.

The first person tried was named Tibbs, for killing a negro, who while
watching for thieves was himself taken for a robber. Though not a
constable, he found pleasure in detecting the crimes of others, and had
in some instances succeeded. He fell a victim to this singular passion:
he was haunting the premises of a settler, by whose servant he was
slain.

The first prosecution for libel was at the instance of Mr. R. L. Murray.
This gentleman, formerly a captain in the army, had been transported for
bigamy. At an early age, while stationed in Ireland, he became
acquainted with a presbyterian lady, and was married to her according to
the rites of her faith. Considering himself trepanned, he came to the
conclusion that the ceremony was void, and subsequently espoused
another. Twenty years after, he was prosecuted; but not at the instance
of the parties more immediately concerned. In an appeal to the British
nation, published at the time, he ascribed the charge to malice; and he
made several unsuccessful efforts to obtain the reversal of the
sentence. In the opinion of eminent counsel, the ceremony was invalid;
and many years after, the judges decided that the marriage of a
presbyterian and an episcopalian in Ireland, could