The court also “Ordered that Capt. John Patterson deliver unto John Halley a Certain Rifle Gun being the property of said John Halley.” Some very serious difference or grave misunderstanding between the court and Mr. James Gibson must have occurred at the November term, 1780, or at some time previous, if the record left in reference thereto be correct--and who would doubt it? Whether or not the court intended to suppress freedom of speech generally, it must be admitted that its action toward Gibson would certainly tend toward suppressing the public expression of a want of confidence in the integrity of that court, and putting a stop to the practice of “throwing out speeches” against it. The record relates that-- James Gibson being brought before the Court, for throughing Out Speeches Against the Court, to-wit,--Saying that the Court was purjured and would not do Justice, and Other Glareing Insults. The Court On Considering the matter are of Opinion that the said James Gibson is guilty of a flagrant Breach of The peace & for the same and the glareing and Dareing insults offered to the Court do order that the said James Gibson be fined the sum of fifteen thousand pounds & that he be kept in custody until same is secured. Gibson, as the record shows, secured the fine. It is not to be supposed that any of the “speeches” which he had been “throwing out” were made in the court room or in hearing of the court, because the record states that he was “brought before the court.” When and where he assailed this august body does not appear. This did not matter to them: their jurisdiction was as wide as the universe, and their power to punish him unquestionable, as they believed. The fine imposed on John Chisholm, a member of the court, for striking and beating Abram Denton out in the court-yard; the fine imposed on John Murphey, for “ill treatment” of his reputed father, no doubt at home; the order directing Capt. Patterson to deliver “unto John Halley” a gun decided by the court to be “the property of said John Halley”; the method employed to punish Gibson; the creation of a commission to determine in effect what money should or should not be a legal tender, as well as the other matters, hereafter to be related, to which they gave attention, show that this remarkable court had no idea of having its powers limited and defined or its jurisdiction circumscribed.