Sheriff, George Childs, who did all the business of the office; Prosecuting Attorney, Eli H. French. At this term of the court there were some twenty-five causes on the docket, all of which were disposed of in two days, and court adjourned on the 6th. At this the first professional attorneys of the county were admitted to practice in the following order: J. S. Frazier, George A. Kellogg, Jas, M. Elwood, an attorney from New York, and who had located at Des Moines, was also admitted to practice. This was the last term of court held by Judge McFarland in Story County. But before dismissing him we will relate a few court scenes which occurred under the writer's (Col. John Scott's) observation. We heretofore observed that one of the Judge's qualifications was that he was a good judge of whisky. We have seen him repeatedly, whilst presiding in court on the trial of causes, take a flask of whisky from his pocket and take a drink and offer it to his friends. At one time when it was exhausted he sent the Deputy Sheriff for a jug full. The Judge, too, was quite a sporting character. He would frequently leave the bench on the trial of a cause to treat his friends, to jump with the bystanders, or to shoot prairie chickens. During the Judge's absence the attorneys on the trial of the cause would frequently get to wrangling on a question of law, and have to stop the trial until they could send for him to settle it. We will relate one scene on the trial of a cause which is a fair sample of the manner in which justice was dealt out and we will pass to another part of our history. On the call of the docket the cause of J. C. vs. R. H. was reached for trial. The Judge called to the attorney for the plaintiff and said: " Young man, you are ready for trial in this case?" The response was: "Yes, your Honor." "Then proceed," said the Judge. The attorney, who was evidently somewhat unskilled in the practice, commenced in a stammering manner, by saying: "Your Honor, this case is brought for the possession of a town lot. The plaintiff bought it from his grantor. and paid his money for it; took a deed, which he now holds. Afterwards the defendant purchased it from the same party, and also took a deed, and went on and built a house on it, and is now occupying it. This action is brought for possession." The Judge turned to Mr. Crocker, attorney for defendant, and said to him: " What do you have to say to that, Mr. Crocker?" Mr. Crocker said: "Your Honor, it is true the plaintiff first purchased the lot in controversy and took his deed, but he did not comply with the registry laws of this State; he did not have his deed recorded, and my client purchased it without any knowledge of his title, and paid his money for it, and has built a house on it and made other improvements, and is now living on it. He is a bona fide purchaser, without any knowledge of plaintiff"s rights. The plaintiff has lost all of his rights by his failure to record his deed, or give us notice of his title." Then proceeding, the Judge responded: " No you don't, Mr. Crocker; that is a little too thin. The young man is right; the oldest title to realty is always good in this court. Judgment for