The Magistrate's Court is a judgment game where you preside over a county court. Each case presents a dispute — a boundary quarrel, a lost-and-found reward demand, a rent dispute during famine — and two possible rulings. Read carefully, weigh the evidence and the law, and choose the fair verdict to build your reputation as an honest judge.
It's a thoughtful, text-driven game that rewards careful reading and good judgment. Each case is a small logic-and-ethics puzzle, and your reputation reflects how well you've judged.
Controls
ClickChoose verdict
Read each case and tap your verdict. Pure decision-making — works on touch and mouse.
Strategy Tips
Read every detail. The fair ruling is usually hinted in the case description. Don't skim.
Consistency builds reputation. A steady record of just verdicts raises your standing as magistrate.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is The Magistrate's Court free? Yes, free and browser-based.
How do I win a case? Choose the verdict that fairly resolves the dispute based on the evidence given.
Does it work on mobile? Yes, fully mobile-friendly.
Design Notes
Magistrate Court presented an unusual design challenge: how do you make a game about judicial decision-making feel engaging without turning real disputes into entertainment? The solution was to pull cases from actual small-claims court archives, anonymize them thoroughly, and let each judgment play out with a randomized consequence table. Your decision is never clearly right or wrong — it has trade-offs that ripple through the town's economy and morale. The hardest part was writing rulings that feel fair regardless of which option you pick. Every outcome needed a justification the player could respect, even if they disagreed with it.
Strategy Guide
The cases in Magistrate Court are anonymized from actual small claims disputes, giving each scenario a grounding in real legal principles. The key to good rulings is consistency: the game tracks your ruling patterns and creates events where past decisions come up as precedent. Ruling against a landlord in a rent dispute, for example, affects your standing with future housing-related cases. The trial format gives you three evidence pieces per case — reviewing all three before ruling is optimal because contradictory evidence carries heavy reputation penalties if missed. The game avoids simple "right vs wrong" scenarios; every case has tradeoffs where either ruling has reasonable legal justification. The defendant confidence mechanic is randomized each playthrough, meaning the same case can play out differently. The long-form ruling text at the end of each case adjusts dynamically based on your rulings, creating a unique judicial philosophy reflection. The 20-case campaign takes about 2 hours to complete.
Play Tips
The consistency mechanic is the game's most sophisticated feature. Each case presents 2-3 evidence pieces before you rule. The optimal approach: read all evidence, identify the legal principle at stake (contract law, property rights, liability), and apply it consistently across cases. The game's hidden precedent tracker remembers your ruling in case 5 and presents a related case at case 12 that uses your prior ruling as binding precedent. Inconsistent rulings (ruling for the tenant in case 5 but against a similar tenant in case 12) incur a -20 reputation penalty. Consistent application of principles, even if you think the game disagrees with your philosophy, yields higher overall reputation.