in open court, a certain number of names from each box, which were entered as drawn upon the minutes of the court, to serve as grand and petit jurors at the ensuing term of the court.  The special juries, for the trial of cases in equity, and appeals from the verdicts of petit juries, were formed from the grand juries, and after the manner following:  A list was furnished by the clerk of the court to the appellant and respondent.  From this list each had the right to strike a name alternately—­the appellant having the first stroke—­until there remained twelve names only.  These constituted a special Jury, and the oath prescribed by law far these jurors was as follows; “You shall well and truly try the issue between the parties, and a true verdict give, according to law and equity, and the opinion you entertain of the testimony.”  Under the pleadings, the entire history of the case went before this jury, and their verdict was final.  It was this method of trial which prevented so long that great desideratum in all judicial systems—­a court for the correction of errors and final adjudication of cases.

Dishonest litigants feared this special jury.  Their characters, as that of their witnesses, passed in review before this jury, whose oaths allowed a latitude, enabling them frequently to render a verdict, ostensibly at variance with the testimony, but almost always in aid of the ends of equitable justice.

The system was eminently promotive of honesty and good morals, as well as the ends of justice; for men’s rights before it were not unfrequently determined by the reputation they bore in the community in which they lived.  This fact stimulated uprightness of conduct, and often deterred the wrong-doer.  It has passed away; but I doubt if what has replaced it has benefited the interests or morals of the people of the State.

Like Mr. Crawford, Judge Dooly relied more upon the practical good sense of the people as jurors, for justice between man and man, than upon the technicalities of the law; and especially upon that of special juries.  Dooly had great contempt for petit juries, and evinced it upon one occasion by declaring in open court that he thought, if there was anything not known to the prescience of the Almighty, it was what the verdict of a petit jury would be, when they left the box for the jury-room.  Dooly was an opponent of Crawford through life—­a friend and intimate of John Clark, Crawford’s greatest enemy.  But his character was devoid of that bitterness and persistent hatred characteristic of these two.  Crawford and Judge Tate were intimate friends, and between these and Clark there was continual strife.  Tate and Clark were brothers-in-law; but this only served to whet and give edge to their animosity.  Dooly, in some manner, became entangled with Tate in this feud; and an amusing story is told of the final settlement of the difficulty between these men.