Page images



forensic friend was never crabber; his wit sion, Serjeant Maynard. The singular pliancy was ever active, and heart always merry. of Maynard enabled him to steer safely through

Johnson was fond, says his biographers, of four very unstable governments. He began collecting a crowd round bin, and letting the his career in the reign of the first Charles; he exuberances of his wit flow for the diversion was the Protector's serjeant, and, then, all of the bystanders. It was no wonder that he being forgotten, he was made a king's serjeant left Oxford without a degree, for he was not at the restoration; he passed through the over fond of subordination, and he laughed at reign of Charles II. in the plenitude of busidiscipline.

ness, and having wisely remained tranquil durSaunders bad a number of young men ing the brief dominion of James, became Wilhanging about him when he moved about in Jiam II.'s Chief Commissioner of the Great the Temple. He would stand at the bar, Seal, when nearly ninety. There were some before the sitting of the court, and put and curious passages between Maynard and Jefdebate cases with them, and urge them to freys. Jeffreys, who never failed to abuse all industry, and many a joyous jest would he pass within his reach with fearless impudence, with them. They voted him almost a Silenas- stood in awe of Maynard, and of him alone. • Indatum veteri venas, it semper, laccho.

Jeffreys, though quick, was not accurate, so Et gravis attritâ pendebat cantharus ansa.” that a stormy discussion would often arise The coarseness of his humour was in keeping

between him and the bar. Upon such an with his day.

occasion Maynard would rise as amicus et We will only give one instance. Speaking of his having no children (he had

censor curiæ, and calmly explain what the law

really was. Upon this, Jeffreys would in. none), he said, “ By my Trogys, none can

stantly take up the matter as Maynard put it. say I want issue of my body, for I have nine

and woe to him who should pretend to dispute in my back," Some few words as to his contemporaries adversary of this great man was the future

the serjeant's view ! The only formidable during his battles in court.

Chief Justice, Sir Edmund Saunders. In a Sir William Jones was a famous attorney

word, what the latter wanted in artifice (we general of that period. He was in much busi

fear we must use that expression), he made up ness, and not unfrequently opposed to Saun

by an admirable cunning disguised under simders. In parliament he advocated the Exclu

plicity, and backed by special pleading. sion Bill with great force. But he was morose

The life of a distinguished lawyer, great and uncompromising, so that the court party though he be, is soon summed up. Saunders could not endure him. Nevertheless, the

was a reporter for about four years, and as he great seal was offered to him, but he tired of

had no particular political bias, but was wil. his profession, like Mingay, the well-known

ling to obey the powers that be, as soon as king's counsel of later years, and shunned

Pemberton was removed, the court cast an preferment in the zenith of his fame. At one

eye on him as a fitting judge to carry out cer-. tiune he was so high in estimation as to have

tain state achievements which they had at the care of remodelling the bench of judges.

heart. For he was already the chief draftsIt was at the juncture when Lord Danby's

man in all indicments and informations on friends were turned out and some barons of

behalf of the Crown. However, he was counthe Exchequer, who did not give satisfaction

sel for Mrs. Price, indicted in 1680, for an in their office. A friend of Essex and Russell, and a staunch opponent of the Quo Warranto

attempt to stifle the Popish Plot, but he did. Informations, his unpopularity with the gov

not succeed against Dugdale, the notorious

witness. He was also counsel for Viscount ernment increased after his retirement from

Stafford, but did not argue much. He was practice, and had he not died in 1 82, it is

counsel against Fitzharris in 1681, against surmised that he might have been involved in

whom he was unnecessarily severe, even rude, the Rye House Plot.

but his law was conspicuously, eminent when We may also mention Kelyng or Keeling, the son of the Chief Justice (the only lawyer compared with the pleading of the numerous who was king's counsel and king's serjeant,

Crown counsel for the prosecution. In 1681

he was counsel against Lord Shafteshury; but and he not a real king's counsel, but only for the occasion, and without salary).* Winning.

in 1682 he appeared to support Lord Danby

on his application to be bailed, and upon this ton, afterwards solicitor-general, a noted law

trial we find the dry answer which he made yer of that day ; Coleman, a person of considerable repute, and often opposed to Saun

to the wrathful Pemberton, who insisted that

Saunders attempted to impose upon the court ders ; Conyers, afterwards Chief Justice of Chester ; Weston, Powys, and Powlet. Lastly,

by attributing opinions and remarks to thein,

which the Chief Justice said they had never there was that extraordinary man who stood,

made. This was not so very unlikely ; but beyond comparison, at the head of his profes

Saunders quietly begged pardon if a mistake

had been made, only, "he did believe the * This Sir John Kelyng was king's counsel extraordinary. Ile was what Wynne calls "individuum vagum

rest of his brethren took it so as well as of attending to this distinction, many have pronounced himself." And he had avoided the intrigues Bacon the first king's counsel instead of Nor h or Turner, whereas Bacon and Kelyng were m-r-ly extra rdinary, with:

of faction by his invincible good humour and out salary or fet, whereas the king's counsel bad £10 a year,

matchless shrewdness,

For want


(P. C.

Now it was contemplated at court that if, It is difficult to speak of a man's character under a fair pretence, the charters of the king of whom it can scarcely be said that he had dom could be seized, a magnificent triumph any. The reader can form his own judgment over their opponents, the enemies of the Duke from the materials we have supplied. It is of York and of Popery, would be gained affirmed that he never deserted the tailor and And they had another object within their his wife, although he moved into the country. hopes which historians have dealt with, though And certain it is that he must have kept his scantily; the refreshing by fines, of a lean eye upon his relations in the country, since he exchequer. In the year 1682 he was made a mentioned them so distinctly in his will. H. Bencher of his Inn, and the 22nd December, left something considerable behind him, which Saunders was made Chief Justice of the he derived, probably, from the care of these King's Bench, and was knighted. He was people. His will was dated 23rd Aug. 1676, called Serjeant on January 13, and took his republished 2nd Sept. 1681, and proved 14th seat on the same day. He had not the slight- July, 1683. His executor and executrix were est idea of such a promotion, and he scarcely the tailor and his wife, and they were made seemed to wish it, for he must needs leave his residuary legatees, “as some recompense for tailor and Butcher Row, and emigrate to their care of him, and attendance upon him Parson's Green. It was supposed that the for many years.

His works must be at once King liked him for his jovial behaviour, so he comprised in his immortal reports. His book gave “ Principi sic placuit" rings.

has been called the Bible, and he himself by He did not, however, survive his promotion the great Lord Mansfield, the Terence, of for one year, and, before his death he was so Pleaders.—Law Magazine. lost, that when his brethren came to him to enable them to confirm his opinion against the city on the Quo Warrantos, he expostulated UPPER CANADA REPORTS, with them, asking "why they would trouble him, when he had lost his memory.” So he

PRACTICE COURT. died at Parson's Green, on the 19th of June, 1683, in the 51st or 52nd year of his age, of, (Reported by HENRY O'BRIEN, Esq., Barrister-al-Lau, it is said, apoplexy and palsy. He was never

Reporter in Practice Court.) sworn of the privy council, although when

IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN Pemberton was finally removed from the bench, he was consoled with that distinction.

THOMAS BURNS AND D. M. POTTER. Saunders heard the arguments on the law war

Arbitration-Service of notice of award and demand of

payment. rants against the city, and he presided at the

A County Court and a Division Court suit, and all disputes. trial of Sir John Pilkington and others, for a Were roferred to arbitration, and a snu of money awarded riot, and assault upon the Lord Mayor, Sir John

to be paid by A. tu B. after ten dave' potice of the award.

This notice was cerved upon the attorney who had acted Moore, who warmly supported the court party for A. on the arbitration, but who disclaimed any right in the dispute concerning the election of she- otherwise to represent him. Held, that th service was riffs. When the defendant's counsel in this

[P. C., H. T., 1867.) case came to challenge the array, Saunders broke out—" Gentlemen, I am sorry you have

On a reference of a County Court suit and a

Division Court suit, and all matters in dispute so bad an opinion of me as to be so little of a lawyer as not to know that this is but a trifle,

between the parties, to the County Judge of Wel

lington, go award was mnie directing, among and nothing in it. Pray, gentlemen, don t put

other things, that $40 57 sbond he paid by these things upon me.

Here the judge Potrer to Burns, togetber with it proportion of reflected that he was really beloved by the bar the costs. The award directed that the sun for his good nature, and so he went on,- awarded should be payable in ten days after “Because I am willing to hear anything, and notice of this my award." where there is any colour of law I am not In December last, shortly after the making of willing to do amiss; therefore, you think I am the award, the attorney wbo bad acted for l'otter now become so weak that you may put any

in the arbitration was served by the attorney for thing upon me.” He had a strong remem- Burns with a notice of the award having been brance of Hale, -"You would not have done mude, and the directions contained in it, and a this before another judge. You would not

demand of the said amount payable to Burns have done it if Sir Matthew Hale had been

Oo the Sih February, 1867, Mr. McMillan, here." The defendants were convicted and

tho aitorney for Burns served Putter with a fined.

copy of the rule making the deed of reference The death of this Chief Justice was prob

a rule of court of the award, and of the power

of attorney from Burns to his attorney to re. ably a coincidence. The sedentary employ

ceive money, &c., and as was stated in the ment of a judge would scarcely have acceler- affidavit of such attorney, be at ated his end in so short a time. Relief from

demanded from Potter the amount awarded, the toil of advocacy would rather have had a

though, as was alleged by Potter afterwards, favourable tendency. He was badly, mortally no explanation as to the facts, &c, was given, diseased before his appointment, and it was a por was a proper or sufficient demand we marvel that his mind, even for so few months, Immediately after this, Porter tendered to Buruis' was competent to sustain his enfeebled body. attorney the sum of $40 57, but, as he refused


same time

P. C.


[C. L. Cham.

[ocr errors]

to pay a further sum demunded as the costs of Mr. Drew, who had acted for Potter in the matter making deed of reference s rule of court, the of the reference, but it seems that gentleman amount was not received

had previously declined to sign a consent to enA. C Chadwick obtained a rule calling upon

largement, referring the parties to his client, Potier to shew cause why he shonld not pay to

who signed personally. Burns the amount awarded, with costs, or, in

It is clear that when, under the old practice, default. why judgment should not be entered an attachment was intended, all the services had against him.

to be persooal. In 2 Archbold's Practice, 1696 W Sydney Smith shewed cause, and contended (Edition of 1856), it says, “ the same formalities that the service of notice and demand on the

as to personal service of copy of award for and attorney was insufficient, and that the subse

demand of performance are in general required quent alleged demand and notice, of tbe 9th

as when an attachment is sued for. A personal February, could not under the award be relied

demand of the money may be dispensed with on. He filert affidavits of Potter and others,

when the party is evidently keeping out of the and one of Mr. Drew, as follows:

way to avoid the game." Same language in * That I was, some time in the month of De

12th edition, 1700. Winwood v. Houll, 14 M. & cember last past, served with the notice andexed,

W. 197, and a later case, Smith v. Troupe, 7 C B. by Alexander Grey McMilllan, nttorney-at-law.

763, seem to poiot to the same issue. Hawkins That I did not take any notice wbatever of

v. Benton, 2 D. & L 466, is express, the defensuch service, nor did I inforın the said David M.

dant was not served, he was an attorney, and l'otter thereof, as I did not consider I wils in

his London agent had applied for copy of award,

which was sent to defendant's address in the any way bound to do so, as the said David M. Potrer lives within a very short distance from

country. See also Russell on Awards, 615, 616 the office of the said Alexander Grey McMillan,

(Edition of 1864). and could it any time bave been served with

In the case before us, Mr. Drew disclaims all such papers 29 were necessary to serve upoo him;

right to represent Potter, and the latter swears

he had no notice of the award or of the amount and further, I have never considered myself to be the attorney of the said David M. Potter in

payable by him thereunder, until he was served this matter, to receive service of pipers herein,

with the rule of court, &c. nor in any way to act for him

this ma'ter,

Under these circumstances, I cannot hold that except to attend before the arbitrator as bis

the proceedings taken are sufficient. I think agent upon the taking evidence herein.

that due notice was not given prior to serving 3. That the said Burns and Melillan were

the rule, and that Potter has been improperly

called on to show cause. well aware that I never considered myself to be

He seems to have been such attorney; for when they called upon me to

rendy and willing to pay the amount when resign the cousent to enlarge the time for the

quired, and I do not see how I can refuse giving

him his costs. arbitrator to make his award. I distinctly refused og to do, and stated at the same time that the

Rule discharged with costs. reason why I so refused was because I did not consider myself to be the attorney for the said Potter in this matter; and that in consequence

COMMON LAW CHAMBERS. of such refusal, the said Potter was called upon, and his personal signature was obtained thereto.

(Reported by HENRY O'BRIEN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law and

Reporter in Chambers.) That when the said police was served upon me I informed the said McMillan that, in my opinion, IN THE MATTER OF A SUIT IN THE Sixth Divithe proper way of notifying the said David M.

SION COURT OF THE COUNTY OF WENTWORTH, Potter of the arbitrators' award in this matter

BETWEEN WALTER BRADSHAW, PLAINTIFF. AND would be by giving him a copy of the said award. EDWARD DUFFY, DEFENDANT.

That the said McMillan was not the attorney for the said Burns, in the County Court suit

Prohibition-Jurisdiction of Division Courts Title to land,

- Pences. named in the indenture of submission and arbi

A., intending to make a line fence between his land and that trators' aw:lrı! in this matter, Adam Scott

of B., by mistake made the fence on B's land. Afterwards, Gillespie, who at the time of the commencement A correct line having been run, it was agreed that A. & B. of snid suit resided in the said village of Elora,

should each make a portion of the fence on the correct

ling. B, in making his share, used the rails of the old having been his attorney in such suit; and I fence made by A. A sued B. in the Division Court for Dever had, as the attorney for the said Potter, the price of the rails so used, and the judge having any notice of the said Burns having changed

decided in his favour, B. applied for a prohibition, but

held, that the judge bad jurisdiction. his attorney.

[Chambers, February 7, 1867.] That the snid Alexander Grey McMillan never produced to me any authority from the An action was brought in the Sixth Division Baid Burns to demand and receive the moneys

Court for the county of Wentworth, for $28, bementioned in the said award in this matter to be ing amount awarded by Peter McLagan, Edmund paid by the said Potter to the said Burns, nor

Smith, and Eliza Maon, fence viewers of the am I aware that he ever bad any such authority.”

township of Ancaster, as payable by said defenChadwick contra, relied upon Rothwell v.

dant to said plaintiff for share of line fence and

rails between lots 33 and 34 of the 4th concesTimbrel, 6 Jur. 691, and Iawkins v. Benton, 20 & L 465.

sion of said township:

The case was tried before bis Honor JudgeHAGARTY, J. --The award is clear that the Logie, at Aocaster, and evidence given before. sum awarded is not payable until ten days after him in substance as follows: notice of the award. The notice given was to That the plaintiff bad put up a line fence

C. L. Cham.]


LC. L. Cham.

many years ago on wbat was supposed to be the tained a summons calling on the plaintiff, Bradline between bis lot and an adjoining lot, which sbaw, and the Judge of the County Court of the was subsequently purchased hy Duffy, the defen- County of Wentworth, to shew cause wby a writ dant. Some tiine after the defendant had pur- of probibition should not issue to probibit all chased the adjoining lot, he got a surveyor to proceedings in this matter, and upon an order run the line between bim and the plaintiff, and for payment made by the said Judge of the County the surveyor, in running this line, took in a tri- Court of the County of Wentworth, presiding in angular piece of land from the plaintiff, of which the Division Court, on tbe ground that the said he had been in possession. In order to save judge had no jurisdiction to try or adjudicate litigation, the parties entered into an agreement upon the matters tried and adjudicated upon by to run the division line through the middle of him in the said suit in the said Division Court. the triangular piece of land, dividing it equally Spencer showed cause, and objected that the between them Fence viewers were got to deter

summons did not state the grounds upon wbich mine the portion of the fence which each party

the application was made with sufficient partishould erect and maintain, and each party erected

cularity That the title to lauds did not come in bis part of the fence on the line agreed upon.

question, the contention simply being whether a In doing so, Duffy, the defendant, used the rails

Judge of a Division Court could adjudicate upon of the fence which had been originally erected

the question, fixture or po fixture If he can, and maintained by Bradshaw, the plaintiff, but

and there is no doubt that be cap, be bad juriswhich fence by the agreement was upon the land

diction in this case, and there can be no probi. taken in by the defendant. The plaintiff brought

bition. The question is as to the ownership of tbe suit for the value of the rails so taken by the rails, not of the land. Rails cannot, under the defendant.

the circumstances of this case, be considered as The learned judge reserved his judgment, part of the realty. which he subsequently gave in writing, in favor

O'Reilly, Q C.-The summons is sufficient, of the plaintiff, as follows:

and want of jurisdiction may be shown by affi" It is no doubt the case that, in general, erec

davit. (This point was not pressed by the other tions put upon lands by a person not the owner

side, the learned judge being against the objec. cannot be removed, but become the property of tion ) the owner, as forming part of the freehold, and

Ferces are a part of the realty and go with probably a fence would be considered part of

the land, and the judge bad no jurisdiction to ibe freehold The law is however modified in

try a case where the title to land came in quesfavor of those who, in consequence of an un. tion.- Elwes V. Maw, 3 East. 38; Thresher v. ekilful survey, have made improvements upon E. London Waterwork Co. 2 B. & C. 609: Steward Jands as their own which, on a correct survey

v. Lombe, 1 B. & B. 506; Colgrave v. Diosantos. being made, turn out to belong to a neighbour.

2 B. & C. 76; Bunnell v. Tupper, 10 U. C. Q. B. Section 53 of chapter 93 of the Consolidated

414 ; Amos & Ferrard on Fixtures, 9, 13. Statutes for Upper Canada provides that, in such

Even if the judge bad power to decide as to cases, the owner of the land, in an action of

whether the fence was or was not a fixture, lie ejectment, shall not recover possession until he

could not by deciding that question wrongfully pays for the improvements, the value of which

thereby give himself jurisdiction, when in truth are to be assessed by the jury.

he bad no jurisdiction. The equiries of the case It has been held, in Campbell v. Fergusson, 4

are with Duffy, who for the sake of a settlement U. C. C P 414, recognized in Hutton v. Trotter, 16 U. C. C. P. 367, and Morton v. Lewis, 16 U.

gave up a strip of bis land. C. C. P. 485, that the act applies to private sur- HAGARTY, J.-I am of opinion tbat I should reys made on the defendant's own account, as not order a probibition in this case, or interfere well as to public surveys; and in the last puned with the decision of the learned judge. case, Morion v. Lewis, it was held that feuces not dissatisfied with bis view of the facts; and were improvements within the meaning of thc act with the powers vested in him by the statuie, I

In this case, supposing that no agreement had cannot say be bas decided erroneously. When been made between these parties about the lnod, the fence-viewers awarded that Duffy should and that Duffy: had brought an action of eject- maintain a specified portion of the boundary ment for the land, Bradshaw would have had a fence, and to do that he took away the rails forright under the statuie to assess against Duffy merly furnished by Bradshaw, to mainta what the value of bis improvements, including the used to be a division fence on land now disco. value of the fences ; and Duffy would have bad vered to be Duffy's, I cannot say it was beyond to pay for the improvements before he could re- the learned judge's power to decide that auch cover possession, and Bradshaw ought not to be rails so removed from the freehold to which they placed in a worse position in consequence of the were perhnps in a manner annexed, should not agreement settling the line, than he would bave be paid for by Duffy when used by him to erect been in if an action of ejectment had been the new fence, which he was bound by the award brought agninst him. I think, both legally and to maintain. They were originally Bradshaw's equitably, the plaintiff in this suit is entitled to property, and put there for a special purpose. recover for the value of the rails, which origi- not to become part of Duffy's freehold in any nully belonged to bim, and which defendant used view of the parties. By the new survey and in the erection of his part of the fence But I agreement, that fence ceased to answer the incannot allow him for old rails what new ones teoded purpose, and a new fence is to be erected (which it may reasonably be expected would last instead Duffy is bound to maintain part of the much longer) would cost."

new fence, and he takes up these rails and uses On the 28th January last, O'Reilly, Q C., ob- them to fulfil bis obligation.

I am

C. L. Cham.]


[C. L. Cham.

I think Duffy must pay the costs of the par- his right on Timothy street, two or three rods ties whom he has unnecessarily brought here. from him, but who was behind him. When he

went towards Main street he heard his steps on

the snow behind him, and partially turned round THE QUEEN V. MOSIER.

and saw the man, and he beard him following Habeas Corpus-29, 30, Vic. cap. 45– Revisory proers of him. When about half-way down to Main street

juiges of Superior Courts over decisions of magistrates Jurisdiction of Police Magistrales.

he heard as if some one was walking behind The 29 & 30 Vic., cap. 45, had in view and recognized the

bim, and he got a violent blow as if a sudden right of every man committed on a criminal charge to concussion, and this is all he remembers. "He hare the opinion of a judge of Superior Court upon the

was deprived of consciousness. He had been rause of his commitment by an inferior jurisdiction The jndges of the Superior Courts are bound, when a pri. walking slowly, expecting the person to come

soner is brought before them under that statute, to exa- up. It flashed through his mind it was perhaps mine the proceedings and evidence anterior to the warrant

Mosier waiting for him, but he did not form this of commitment, and to discharge him if there does not

When appear sufficient cause for his detention.

opinion from his form or appearance. The evidence in this case warranted the magistrate in requir. the person following him did not overtake him, ing bail,

he thought that it was Mosier, but he did not Police Magistrates have jurisdiction both in cities and counties.

turn for enough round to see who struck him, [Chambers, March 4, 1867.] but before he was struck, and just as he was D. B. Read, Q C., obtained a writ of habeas turping round to see who was follow him, the corpus to bring up the body of one John Moeier thought occurred to him that it was Mosier. As who was a prisoner in the common jail of the

far as he can tell he was struck one blow. The county of York, charged with an assault on Dr. blow was on the upper part of the spine. He Hunter, of Newmarket, with intent to do bim could not say how long was till he hecame grievous bodily barm; and on the same day he

conscious. His first recollection was hearing the obtained a writ of certiorari, directed to Alex- 6 o'clock bell ring. He was lying on his face and Ander McNabb, police magistrate for the city of

side; no one near. He could not rise, and his Toronto, to send up the proceedings had before tongue was partially paralyzed from the effect of bim, upon which the warrant to commit the pri- the blow. He called as loud as he could, and one soner had been founded.

Dennis came up, and then went and brought Mr. On the return of these writs, the evidence Landy, who took him home, where he was contaken before the police magistrate at Newmarket fined to bed for five or six days, but his neck and was produced and read, from which it appeared— spine were painful for fourteen days. No one, he That the municipal election for the village of

says, knew that be was to be out at «hat parNewmarket was to be held on Monday, the 7th

ticular time but his servant girl and Mosier On January, 1867, and that Dr. Hunter was one bis cross-examination he said he did not say it was of the candidates ; tbat he had made arrange

Mosier who struck him, or that he had any moments to go with a Mr. Atkinson to Queensville tive for assaulting bim. All his knowledge of bim to see a man by the name of Stiles, but on Sun- would lead bim to believe that he was his friend, day nigbt, the 6th of January, it was arranged in

but he says he accused Mosier of apathy at the the presence of Mr. Campbell

, Mr. Hodge and election in January Inst. He thought he ought Mr. McMaster, at Dr. Hunter's own suggestion, to bave influenced his brothers-in-law, one of that he should take Mr. McMaster's horse and whom was strong against him, and he says discutter and drive himself to Queensville, instead of tinctly there was no arrangement that Mosier going with Mr. Atkinson, as bad been arranged was to come back for him. the evening before. Although Dr. Hunter does William McMaster said he was the person repot remember Mosier's name being then men- ferred to by last witness (Dr. Hunter). Mosier tioned, he said it was tacitly understood that did not know from him of any arrangement Mosier, who was Mr. McMaster's agent, was with Hunter to lend bim bis horse and cutter to to call him early, and although no hour was go to Queensville. Mosier does not live at bis pamed, be seems to think it was to have been at place, as he is married. McMaster undertook 5 o'clock. At 5 o'clock there was a noise heard to wake Hunter on Monday morning On Monat Dr. Hunter's door, which awakened him. day morning Mosier woke witness by throwing He got up and found it was Mosier, who came snow on his window, and when he found it was in and said he came to awaken him--that he Mosier he told him to come up to his room. was afraid he would oversleep himself. Dr. He had directed Mosier to wakep him on MonHunter asked him to stop and get some break- day morning at five o'clock, but gave him no fast, but he said that he would go and get the reason, but thinks he bad told Mosier to waken horse and cutiter ready. He remained some him ; that he bad arranged with Hunter to go time-five or ten minutes. The arrangement to Queensville with bis horse and cutter Не was that he was not to return, and Dr. Hunter looked at his watch when Mosier wakened bim, was to go down to Mr. McMaster's; it was five and it was about five o'clock. He heard Mosier or six hundred yards from his house. Dr. Hun- go out to the street after he got his instructer got breakfast and asked the girl what time tions, and in about fifteen or twenty minutes it was, and he was told it was half-past five. he saw Mosier return into bis yard. He lookHe then got up and put on his overcoat and ed through the window and recognized him, Overshoes and mufiler. About 25 minutes to six and did not see him after this till six o'clock, o'clock Dr. Hunter left his house on Timothy but heard him moving the sleigh in the yard. street to go to Mr. McMaster's house on Main He heard bim after this go out of the yard and street, and took the direct road to it. Timothy go up the street, and he had only been gone a street goes into Main street at right angles. As few minutes when he heard him running like as Dr. Hunter left his house be saw some one to for his life. He ran into the yard and up into wit

« PreviousContinue »