Mr. William Jeffcott,
The second Resident Judge of Port Phillip, arrived from Sydney in the revenue cutter " Prince George," n t h July, 1843. H e was a member of the Irish bar, and had been L a w Adviser at Dublin Castle. H e was brother of Sir John Jeffcott, once Judge in South Australia, and was described by the Sydney correspondent of a Melbourne journal as " bland in his manners, of first-rate talents, and about 40 years of age." H e had practised for a short time in the Sydney Courts, and obtained the Port Phillip appointment because no other Barrister of any standing would take it. H e was a bachelor, and accompanied as Associate by Mr. R. W . Shadforth, son of Colonel Shadforth, of Sydney. H e took up his quarters at the Prince of Wales Hotel, in Little Flinders Street east, then the most select place of entertainment in Melbourne. T h e new Judge was an early riser, a great stickler for punctuality and etiquette; and he commanded the Deputy-Sheriff and Deputy-Registrar to appear officially costumed in Court, and his Associate to mount a wig and gown. T h e wig was ultimately not insisted on. O n the 15th July, Judge Jeffcott, took his seat in the old Court-house ; but as the N e w Court-house was completed, he at once adjourned the Session there. In the N e w Court-house, therefore, the new Judge virtually made hisfirstappearance. In the civil jurisdiction, Mr. Raymond presented a petition from Mr. J. B. Were, detailing the circumstances of his imprisonment by Judge Willis, and praying to be discharged from custody. Judge Jeffcott declined to entertain the memorial in its then form, because it imputed motives to the late Judge. H e suggested its amendment by the omission of everything except a plain narrative of the circumstances connected with the imprisonment; and adjourned the Court to 3 o'clock. The amended petition apologised for any warmth of feeling evinced by the petitioner on the previous occasion, and had an affidavit attached that Were had not, and had not intended to have, committed prevarication when so summarily dealt with by Judge Willis. A document was also put in signed by Major St. John, Captain M'Crae, Messrs. Raymond, Ebden, Campbell, Welsh and others, declaring that Were had not in reality been guilty of any contempt. His Honor regretted that the memorial had not been presented to Judge Willis, who would, he believed, under the circumstances, have felt it necessary to abate the severity of the sentence. H e therefore did-what he thought the late Judge would have done, grant the prayer of the petition ; and the Sheriff was ordered to discharge Mr. Were forthwith from custody. A n d now things began to go smoothly. Judge Jeffcott was the antithesis of his predecessor. H e was good-tempered,firm,impartial, and methodical. H e presided on Mondays in C o m m o n Law, Tuesdays in Equity, Fridays in Insolvency ; and, as an enlr'e and exit rule, it was directed that spectators should use the main entrance facing south ; magistrates, barristers, attornies, and press, the western door; and jurors sheriff's officers, and officers of the Court the eastern door. H e was a vast improvement upon the gentleman he succeeded, and the Court business was no longer a series of gratuitous farces for public amusement. From a bear-garden it became a decent, well-behaved place. The golden rule of suaviter in modo et fortiter in re was thoroughly exemplified in the new Judge. Mild and courteous to a degree, his firmness and determination taught both branches of the legal profession a lesson by which they promptly profited. The monthly oration to the criminal jury was discontinued, and the public was allowed to go its own way, up or down, right or left, without anything of the semblance of the ultra-judicial homilies of old which always irritated and never edified. Even the improvised services of Parson Thomson were dispensed with, and the Criminal Session was opened simply by the crier's sonorous iteration of " O yez ! O yez ! " a change duly appreciated by a community desirous of no sectarian or religious ascendancy of any kind. Judge Jeffcott did not remain long in the district, for he resigned his office towards the close of 1844, and the 4th of February, 1845, witnessed his last appearance in Court. T h e Crown Prosecutor presented his Honor with a farewell address from the Bar, in which specif reference was made to the courtesy and amenity of temper, the untiring energy and uncompromiSig integrity, ability and zeal displayed by the departing functionary. T h e Judge was deeply affected by the compliment, and, in an appropriate reply, declared " that his position as sole Judge in a young colony, which was struggling at the
