Hi all, I've discovered a fascinating new (to me) book: Isaac, Rhys, The Transformation of Virginia: 1740-1790 (1982, 400+ pages, winner of Pulitizer Prize) The chapter on court system explains one record which lists my ancestor as a "venireman." I'm including my notes on courts below. Hope you find this as interesting as I did. Lynne Hundley CHAPTER 5 -- COURT DAY Courthouse was usually a brick structure with a simple round-arched, loggia-style porch on the front. It stood at a crossroads in the midst of woods and fields since there were few towns. Sites weree chosen for central location. Support buildings included an ordinary (tavern), a lock-up and often a store. (pg 88) Gentlemen conducted the court, which was nearly all the government at the time – adjudicating disputes, recording transactions, and distributing small favors. (90) Gentleman justices, dressed in wigs and fine coats, were seated on a raised bench. Proceedings were ceremonial, with frequent oath taking. No justice or militia officer could act until qualified by taking oaths in open court: promising to execute the office faithfully, swearing allegiance to the king, and repeating and subscribing the Test (that is "explicit expression of detestation for the papist doctrine of transubstantiation," – constantly reaffirming Virginia's official identity as Protestant and English). (91) Legal transactions – deeds that secured the properties, boundaries and entitlements – were admitted to the record only after they had been read in court and acknowledged by the voices of parties and witnessed. In a society with a low literacy the legal system was based on written instruments, but the written record was rendered viva voce and so assimilated into the community knowledge accessible to all. (91) Calling and swearing of juries served the same purpose: "When free persons arraigned for felony were sent to the General Court in Williamsburg for trial, society paid not only for the witnesses to attend but also for a jury of twelve 'venire men,' as they were called, to come from the 'vicinage' of the crime to judge the facts. Quite explicitly then, the community's fund of knowledge and received wisdom was incorporated in formal proceedings." (91) In county courts, juries determined causes and assessed damages. They went into the fields in boundary suits, with a surveyor, to adjudicate the way the line was run and to witness to the settlement – "adding the outcome to the communal store of information." (91) Similarly the semiannual calling of "twenty-four of the most capable free-holders" as grand juries to translate the community's knowledge of wrong-doings into recorded indictments: for bearing a bastard child; for swearing profane oaths, for being absent overlong from a parish church… (91-92) Free persons and indentured servants indicted for felony were tried in General Court in Williamsburg if the justices found sufficient evidence to warrant trial. Slaves were tried in county courts (without jury) for capital offenses. If found guilty of theft and the value was set at less than five shillings, the slave was eligible for "Benefit of Clergy" – to be branded on the hand, lashed and released. In an oral culture, all present would remember that the convicted, if ever again convicted of a felony, was no longer eligible for benefit of clergy. (92) The ceremonial acts of court day not only made the community a witness to important decisions and transactions but also taught "… the very nature and forms of government. Anglo-Virginians had no written constitution; they could only conceive of law and authority in their society as extensions and adaptations of English custom …There were no elementary textbooks on 'government'… For most… the primary mode of comprehending the organization of authority was through participation in court-house proceedings. The oaths and rituals were so many formulas, diagrams, or models, declaring the nature of government and its laws." (92-93) The monthly work of the court was routine – mostly cases of debt recovery… Cases were decided by juries impaneled by the sheriff from among the freeholders present in the courthouse, in the yard, or in the nearby ordinary. Thus the community participated to a large extent in the settling of its disputes… (93) "The court was central to the organization of society. Its function went deeper than the conduct of business... The court was the guardian of the Law, and the Law defined rights and obligations. Rights meant property – above all in land and slaves. Obligations meant, essentially, the monetary regulation of relationships between landowners (as in trespass cases) and of relationships that arose from trade in the produce of land (mainly debts and credits)…At the sessions of the county commissioners a powerful form of high culture – the Law – met with a compelling local need – security of property." (93-94)