Assembly; and this continued, with some modifications, down through the Revolution and into a few succeeding years. In New Hampshire, as in other colonies, a ludicrous looseness prevailed in the depart ment of justice, extending down to the close of the eighteenth century; and yet legal procedures were characterized by the appli cation of good sense, so that justice and equity were kept in their legitimate channel. These old courts had stated times for meet ing, in Exeter, Hampton, and Portsmouth, where the judges went through the cere mony of hearing causes and giving de cisions; and wise beyond his fellows was that suitor who could guess what the same court would hold at its next sitting. It does not appear that the people held the judges in lofty veneration, for the whole process of justice savored too much of a lottery, where luck, and not reason, won the prize. Law learning was not a requi site for judges till long after the Revolu tion; and it came to pass that almost anybody except a lawyer was thought of as the proper person to sit on the bench. Laymen were repeatedly appointed, and this practice continued with general ap proval until judicial affairs soon became nothing more than a bundle of wrongs and grievances bound up in faded red tape. Throughout the young Republic the bur dens imposed by the war were so heavy that the stoutest patriots lost courage, debts pub lic and private harassed every one, and the courts, as well as the Government, lacked the confidence of the people. While this vexed condition of affairs was threatening, new men came to the front and furnished the brains and energy to overcome the ob stacles. In statesmanship and administra tive ability they showed themselves to be the peers of their contemporaries in Europe, and by their splendid achievements saved the country from utter ruin. But these great men, although lawyers, did hot seek the bench in search of fame; their talents were given elsewhere, thus leaving the law
to work out its own regeneration. And so it was in New Hampshire, — the courts were neglected by able men, although the profes sion contained very eminent members; but as the bar was not the training-school for the judges, it exercised but little influence on the public mind. During the Revolution, Meshech Weare, who was given to theological studies, was Chief-Justice of the Superior Court, while one of his two associates was the celebrated Matthew Thornton, a patriot by calling and a physician by profession. These men were among the most prominent in the land; but while they achieved renown in the history of their State and country, they scarcely could have been selected as exponents of the niceties of pleading, whatever abilities they may have possessed at nation-making. And yet it was by men like these, although not always so able, that the judicial policy of the State was for a long time directed. In 1782 Samuel Livermore became Chief-Justice, bringing to the bench a resoluteness of purpose seasoned with some law learning, that gave him legal distinction and renown. Even to-day one hears among the old ra conteurs of the bar stories of this judge. Livermore was one of the marked charac ters of the epoch, who was as independent of conventionality as any living being could be, and yet he enforced respect by his rugged honesty and his sound interpretation of the law. He attached no importance to prece dents, and to quote any would invite his anger and set loose his sharp and merciless tongue. Even when gross inconsistency marked his decisions, and his attention was called to his former rulings, he was not disturbed, but merely replied that " Every tub must stand on its own bottom." He frequently cautioned the jury against " pay ing too much attention to the niceties of the law to the prejudice of justice." He was firm in his determination not to go back into the past in quest of authorities; so he laid down the inflexible rule that all reports of a date prior to the Declaration
