At the February term, 1779, the court made and entered of record an order prescribing the charges that tavern-keepers might exact from guests as follows: Diet 08s. 0: Lodging 1 night good bed and clean sheets 1s. 6d: Rum Wine or Brandy 3L. 4s. 0: Toddy pr Quart, & sprts of Rum therein 8s. 0. and so in proportion. Corn or Oats per Gal 4s. 0: Stabledge with hay or fodder 24 hrs 4s. 0: Pasturage 24 hrs. 2s: Cyder pr qrt 4s. 0: Bear pr qrt 2s. 0: Whisky pr Gallon 2L. 0. 0: After they had put the above on record, they entered upon the trial of their second case of a very high crime, as the following entry shows: STATE } _vs._ } _For Treason Feby 1779_ GEORGE LEIVIS. } On hearing the facts and considering the testimony of the Witnesses It is the Opinion of the Court That the defendant be sent to the District Gaol It Apg. To the Court that the said Leivis is a spie or An Officer from Florida out of the English Army. At this term, besides transacting routine business, they tried ten persons on charges of treason, convicted five of them, ordered their property confiscated, and sent them to the district jail at Salisbury--and the entire record of the term is contained on twelve pages! If this court could have been transferred to the more intelligent states of Massachusetts or New Hampshire, and had held a few terms therein, “Shays’s rebellion” would have been crushed out in a week, or all the “gaols” would have been filled with the rebellious and the public treasury with the proceeds of confiscated property. These patriots were in earnest. At the May term, 1779, two entries appear as having been made on the same day, which show two sides of this remarkable court. The first entry is as follows: STATE } _v._ } _For stealing a Ploughshear, hogs and some_ PAT MURPHEY } _other Things_ The Court are of Opinion that the defendant pay 33L. 6s. 8d. to Zachr. Isbell for his Hog & 26L. 13s. 4 to Thos. Evans for his Hog and ten pounds fine And also receive Twenty Lashes on his bare Back well laid on by the Sheriff or Deputy. The other entry was: Ordered that John Murphey be fined the sum of Twenty pounds for Ill Treatment to his reputed father Pat Murphey. The court said that, in its opinion, Pat Murphey was a bad man--and he was, as other cases in the records against him show; and they had him whipped, fined him and, under the operation of the court’s adjustable jurisdiction, rendered judgment against him in a criminal case for the value of two hogs; but these “backwoods” justices of the peace said to the reputed son of this old and hardened criminal that “Ill Treatment” of a father, by even a reputed son, would not be tolerated in that community.