Definition
A court of criminal jurisdiction convened before two or more justices of the peace. The term appears in both English and American legal usage, with significant differences in application between the two contexts.
1. In English law: A court held in each county at regular quarterly intervals — hence the name "quarter sessions" — with the county of Middlesex as a notable exception, where sessions were held twice monthly. The court required the presence of at least two justices of the peace, one of whom was required to be a justice of the quorum, a designation indicating particular legal qualifications within the commission of the peace. Sessions jurisdiction extended to criminal matters, including trial of misdemeanors and certain felonies, as well as administrative functions relating to county governance.
2. In American law: A court of criminal jurisdiction adopted in many states under a variety of names. The term "sessions of the peace" was used broadly to describe tribunals of similar structure and purpose — courts convened periodically before justices of the peace or their functional equivalents, with jurisdiction over criminal offenses at or below the felony level. Usage and nomenclature varied widely by state.
3. In New York specifically: Rapalje & Lawrence identifies a distinct application following the constitutional reforms of 1846, where the term connects to proceedings for the trial of impeachments, reflecting the restructuring of New York's court system in that era.
Common Confusion
The term "ter sessions" (or "ter" as a prefix) may suggest a triennial or three-times-yearly schedule to modern readers, but this is a false cognate. The historical record, including Bouvier, describes the standard English form as quarterly — four times per year. The "ter" prefix here appears to function as an archaic anglicized shorthand for a variant scheduling arrangement rather than a strict three-times designation, and researchers should not rely on the name alone to determine the court's sitting frequency. Verify against the specific jurisdiction and period at issue. This is easily conflated with quarter sessions, which is the more common English term for the same institution.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is a navigational hazard for researchers working in pre-twentieth-century criminal law records, particularly in English county records and early American state court documents.
First, the institutional name is unstable across time and jurisdiction. American states adopted the English model in varying degrees. Some retained the "sessions of the peace" language; others renamed the court entirely. Researchers searching for jurisdictional predecessors to modern criminal courts may encounter this term in early state codes, constitutional provisions, and procedural manuals without a clear indication of what functions or jurisdiction the court exercised locally.
Second, the New York connection flagged by Rapalje & Lawrence — linking sessions of the peace to impeachment proceedings under post-1846 structural reforms — is a historically specific application that will not appear in English sources or other American jurisdictions. Researchers working in New York legal history must account for the 1846 constitutional reorganization when interpreting references to this court.
Third, Bouvier's reference to Stephens' Commentaries (4 Steph. Com. 317–320) for English law is a reliable pointer to the foundational English treatment, but researchers should note that the English quarter sessions system was substantially reformed and eventually abolished in England and Wales by the Courts Act 1971, which transferred jurisdiction to Crown Courts. English sources after that date will not contain operative references to this institution.
Fourth, the justice of the quorum requirement has its own research implications. Not all justices of the peace held quorum status, and the validity of sessions proceedings depended on quorum presence. Historical records challenging the legality of sessions proceedings sometimes turned on this point.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier and Rapalje & Lawrence agree on the essential character of the institution: a periodically convened criminal court operating before justices of the peace. Bouvier provides the more complete English law description, citing the quarterly schedule and the Middlesex exception, and grounding the entry in Stephens' Commentaries. Rapalje & Lawrence is comparatively sparse but adds the New York-specific dimension, pointing to the New York Code of Procedure (1849) as a reference for the post-1846 structural context.
Neither source provides a sustained treatment of the American variants beyond acknowledging that the institution was "so-called in many states." This is a meaningful gap: the diversity of American adoption — differences in jurisdiction, composition, and scheduling — is not captured in either dictionary, and researchers relying solely on these sources for American applications will need to supplement with state-specific codes and constitutional histories.
Both sources treat the institution as a functioning court at the time of writing. Neither anticipates the eventual abolition of the English form or the absorption of similar American courts into consolidated court systems.
Jurisdictional Note
English and American applications diverge substantially. In England, the institution had a relatively uniform structure regulated by statute and common law doctrine. In the United States, the form and name varied by state, and some states renamed the court while retaining its functional equivalent. New York's post-1846 usage carries impeachment-related connotations not present elsewhere.