The decision of Judge Forbes, instanced in a former page, which determined that the common law right remained with the session of magistrates, had been acted on for a time. Emancipists sat on these juries, and exulted in the privilege. Their press, in publishing the list, distinguished the members of their body by affixing stars (*) to their names. The act of parliament (1828) set aside the interpretation of the judge; but when it took away the common law right, it gave power to the crown to authorise the institution of juries, at the discretion of colonial legislatures. Thus an ordinance entitling to trial by jury in civil cases, was established in New South Wales (1829). The chief justice strongly favored the eligibility of emancipists, who were three times more numerous than the immigrant population. The non-official members of the council were generally opposed to their admission; but the measure was carried by ten against five. Thus, although the trial of criminal causes still remained with the military, the courts could not withdraw civil wrongs from the verdict of civilians. By this act the officers of government were liable to some responsibility, and in several instances were cast in damages, notwithstanding the efforts of the crown to defend them. While civil jurors were confined to civil issues, they sat in the box occupied at other times by the military jury. An officer had amused his leisure, while sitting on a trial, by tracing caricatures of the civil jurors, and writing libels on the benches. Thus insulted, they appealed to the court for protection. The judge was unwilling to interfere; but being pressed, remarked, that were the authorship traced to a military juror, he would close his court rather than intrust to such hands the administration of justice (1830). The hostility of the opulent emigrants to the eligibility of emancipists was intense and lasting. This was still more active when the trial of criminal issues passed into their hands (1833). They asserted that the criminal at the bar was too literally tried by his peers, and that scenes disgraceful to public justice were enacted in the retiring room. It required all the authority of the court to repress antipathies so openly avowed. The rancour excited by this question is scarcely credible: a gentleman addressed the judge from the box before he was sworn, and asked if he was expected to deliver a verdict with twice convicted felons? Appearances of partiality and corruption were quoted to prove the pernicious effect of their admission. The magistrates, usually hostile to the measure, returned as fit and proper persons, those whom they knew would disgrace the box. Some flagrant cases were exhibited as specimens of the whole: a juror, out on bail for horse-stealing, resolutely acquitted another charged with cattle-stealing, and was convicted himself. Thus, it was said, returns to the summons of jurors, in one instance, was "hanged;" in another, "transported for life."