. The conception was a new one, and in Georgia, with her
peculiar population, its effects were admirable. It was an honest,
common-sense adjudication of equity cases, and rendered cheap and
speedy justice to litigants. It was unknown in the judiciary system of
any other State, and I will be excused by the reader, who may not be a
Georgian, for a brief description of it here.

By direction of the law of 1798, the justices of the Inferior Court
took the tax list, which contained the name of every white man of
twenty-one years and upwards in the county, and, from this list,
selected a certain number of names, and placed them in a box marked
"The grand-jury box." The remaining names were placed in another box
marked "The petit-jury box." Those selected as grand jurors were chosen
because of their superior intelligence, wealth, and purity of
character. These selections were made at certain stated periods; and
the jurors thus chosen from the mass never served on the petit jury,
nor were they liable even as talesmen to serve on that jury. The same
act made it the duty of the presiding judge of each circuit to draw, at
the termination of each term of his court, and in open court, a certain
number of names from each box, which were entered as drawn upon the
minutes of the court, to serve as grand and petit jurors at the ensuing
term of the court. The special juries, for the trial of cases in
equity, and appeals from the verdicts of petit juries, were formed from
the grand juries, and after the manner following: A list was furnished
by the clerk of the court to the appellant and respondent. From this
list each had the right to strike a name alternately--the appellant
having the first stroke--until there remained twelve names only. These
constituted a special Jury, and the oath prescribed by law far these
jurors was as follows; "You shall well and truly try the issue between
the parties, and a true verdict give, according to law and equity, and
the opinion you entertain of the testimony." Under the pleadings, the
entire history of the case went before this jury, and their verdict was
final. It was this method of trial which prevented so long that great
desideratum in all judicial systems--a court for the correction of
errors and final adjudication of cases.

Dishonest litigants feared this special jury. Their characters, as that
of their witnesses, passed in review before this jury, whose oaths
allowed a latitude, enabling them f