as to what the money was for, nor did Downie ask him. It was an order in the same way, as if Watt had been borrowing the money from Downie. . . . Brown tells you, that all those which were made by him, he carried home to Watt. Those again made by Orrock, were seized while they were still in Orrock's own possession. The sheriffofficers tell you, that although they made the strictest search, yet they could find no such thing in Downie's house. Brown tells you, that it was Mr. Watt alone who employed and directed him to make those pikes, and that no other person ever spoke to him on the subject. He made them for Watt, and when they were made, he carried them home to Watt. Downie was not present when the order was given, nor is there the least reason to suppose that he knew anything at all of the matter. As to the circumstance of Brown's receiving payment from Downie, you have heard how it happened. Watt, not having the money when Brown pressed for it, gave an order upon Downie for it; but that order did not express what the money was for; and Brown expressly tells you, that he neither told Downie what it was for, nor Idid Downie ask him. In short, it was nothing more than the trifling sum of 11. 2s. 6d. which Downie advanced for Watt, without inquiring or knowing what it was for; and you have no reason to suppose, and still less any right to conclude, that Downie knew the money he thus advanced was for making pikes.

36. Lord COCHRANE'S CASE. of Police and Crime. 1898. Vol. I, The prosecution and conviction of Lord Cochrane in 1814 may well be classed under this head, for it was distinctly an error of "la haute police," of the Government, which as the head of all police, authorizes the pursuit of all wrongdoing, and sets the criminal law in motion

Anything said by Brown, therefore, does not, in the most distant degree, affect Mr. Downie. . . . As to his afterwards bringing up two to George Ross's, and showing them there one evening in a company where Mr. Downie was present, you will remark, he does not say that he had been desired to do so, nor that he had any sort of orders for these pikes, either from the Committee of Union, or from the SubCommittee of Ways and Means. Indeed, you have not the least evidence, that either of those committees did ever authorize any such thing, or know anything about the making these weapons; and you have not only no evidence, but you have not even the shadow of reason to suppose, that Mr. Downie ever heard of, or knew anything about the pikes, till they were accidentally brought in the way I have mentioned, and shown to the company in which he happened to be at Ross's. . . And it is of great importance for you to remark, gentlemen, that, excepting upon this single occasion at George Ross's, there is not so much as a word in the evidence, either of Orrock, or of any other witness, which can tend to show that Mr. Downie gave any orders, had any concern, or knew anything whatever regarding those pikes. In short, if you are to fix any guilt upon him as to this business, it must be founded on the solitary testimony of this Mr. Orrock, swearing to casual words passing at a tavern meeting, where Mr. Downie happened to be present.

(ARTHUR GRIFFITHS. Mysteries p. 223.) . . .

against all supposed offenders. It has now been generally accepted that the trial and prosecution of Lord Cochrane (afterwards the Earl of Dundonald) was a gross case of judicial error.

He was charged with having conspired to cause a rise in the public

Funds by disseminating false news. There were, no doubt, suspicious circumstances connecting him with the frauds of which he was wrongfully convicted, but he had a good answer to all. His conviction and severe sentence, after a trial that showed the bitter animosity of the judge (Ellenborough) against a political foe, caused a strong revulsion of feeling in the public mind, and it was generally believed that he had not had fair play. The law, indeed, fell upon him heavily. He was found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of £500, to stand in the pillory, and to be imprisoned for twelve months. These penalties involved the forfeiture of his naval rank, and he had risen by many deeds of conspicuous gallantry to be one of the foremost officers in the British navy. His name was erased from the list of Knights of the Bath, and he was socially disgraced. How he lived to be rehabilitated and restored to his rank and dignities is the best proof of his wrongful conviction.

The story as told by Lord Cochrane himself in his affidavits will best describe what happened. Having just put a new ship in commission, H. M. S. Tonnant, he was preparing her for sea with a convoy. He was an inventive genius, and he had recently patented certain lamps for the use of the ships sailing with him. He had gone into the city one morning, the 21st of February, 1814, to supervise their manufacture, when a servant followed him with a note. It had been brought to his house by a military officer in uniform, whose name was not known, nor could it be deciphered from the illegible scrawl of the letter. Lord Cochrane was expecting news from the Peninsula, where a brother of his lay desperately wounded, and he sent back word to his house that he would come to see the officer at the earliest possible moment. When he returned he found a person he barely knew, who gave the name

of Raudon de Berenger, and told a strange tale. He was a prisoner for debt, he said, within the rules of the King's Bench, and he had come to Lord Cochrane to implore him to release him from his difficulties and carry him to America in his ship. His request was refused it could not be granted, indeed, according to naval rules; and de Berenger was dismissed. But before he left he urged piteously that to return to the King's Bench prison in full uniform would attract suspicion. It was not stated how he had left it, but he no doubt implied that he had escaped and changed into uniform somewhere. Why he did not go back to the same place to resume his plain clothes did not appear. Lord Cochrane only knew that in answer to his urgent entreaty he had lent him some clothes. The room was at that instant littered with clothes, which were to be sent on board the Tonnant, and he unsuspiciously gave de Berenger a "civilian's hat and coat." This was a capital part of the charge against Lord Cochrane.

De Berenger had altogether lied about himself. He had not come from within the rules of the King's Bench but from Dover, where he had been seen the previous night at the Ship hotel. He was then in uniform, and pretended to be an aide-de-camp to Lord Cathcart, the bearer of important dispatches. He made no secret of the transcendent news he brought, viz., that Bonaparte had been killed by the Cossacks, Louis XVIII proclaimed, and the allied armies were on the point of occupying Paris. To give greater publicity to the intelligence, he sent it by letter to the port-admiral at Deal, to be forwarded to the government in London by means of the semaphore telegraph. The effect of this startling news was to send up stocks 10 per cent, and many speculators who sold on the rise realized enormous sums. De Berenger, still in uniform, followed in

a post chaise, but on reaching London he dismissed it, took a hackney coach, and drove straight to Lord Cochrane's. He had some slight acquaintance with his lordship, and had already petitioned him for a passage to America, an application which had been refused. There was nothing extraordinary, then, in de Berenger's visit. His lordship, again, claimed that de Berenger's call on him, instead of going straight to the Stock Exchange to commence operations, indicated that he had weakened in his plot, and did not see how to carry it through. "Had I been his confederate," says Lord Cochrane, in his affidavit, "it is not within the bounds of credibility that he would have come in the first instance to my house, and waited two hours for my return home, in place of carrying out the plot he had undertaken, or that I should have been occupied in perfecting my lamp invention for the use of the convoy, of which I was in a few days to take charge, instead of being on the only spot where any advantage to be derived from the Stock Exchange hoax could be realized, had I been a participator in it. Such advantage must have been immediate, before the truth came out; and to have reaped it, had I been guilty, it was necessary that I should not lose a moment. It is still more improbable that being aware of the hoax, I should not have speculated largely for the special risk of that day."

We may take Lord Cochrane's word, as an officer and a gentleman, that he had no guilty knowledge of de Berenger's scheme; but here again the luck was against him, for it came out in evidence that his

brokers had sold stock for him on the day of the fraud. Yet the operation was not an isolated one made on that occasion only. Lord Cochrane declared that he had for some time past anticipated a favorable conclusion to the war. "I had held shares for the rise," he said, "and had made money by sales. The stock I held on the day of the fraud was less than I usually had, and it was sold under an old order given to my brokers to sell at a certain price. It had necessarily to be sold." It was clear to Lord Cochrane's friends - who, indeed, and rightly, held him to be incapable of stooping to fraud that had he contemplated it he would have been a larger holder of stock on the day in question, when he actually held less than usual. On these grounds alone they were of opinion he should have been absolved from the charge.

Great lawyers like Lords Campbell, Brougham, and Erskine have commented on this case, all of them expressing their belief in Lord Cochrane's innocence. The late Chief Baron, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, in criticizing the trial, ends by expressing his regret that "we cannot blot out this dark page from our legal and judicial history." These are the opinions of legal luminaries in the fullest mental vigor and acumen at the time of the trial. They were intimately acquainted with all the facts, and we may accept their judgment that a great and grievous wrong has been done to a nobleman of high character, who had not spared himself in the service of the State. Their view was tardily supported by the Government in restoring Lord Cochrane to his rightful position.

Case for enticing away the plaintiff's servant. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the March Term, 1896, Rutland County, TAFT,

J., presiding. Verdict directed, and judgment thereon rendered, for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. On July 30, 1890, a contract was

made between the plaintiff and Lucy Wells that she should keep the plaintiff's house and look after his children so long as they should need a home there and that the plaintiff should treat her kindly and discontinue certain law suits between them. She was not to begin until her parents ceased to need her care. Her father having died September 24, 1890, she entered upon her performance of the contract November 8, 1890, and continued thereunder until about May 1, 1891, when she left the plaintiff's service without his consent. The plaintiff testified that he found the letter recited below upon a stand in Miss Wells' room during her stay at his house; that it was in the defendant's [her brother's] handwriting, and that the copy produced was made by him and is correct; that many letters passed between the defendant and Miss Wells while she was at his house; that there was an envelope with the letter in question which was new in appearance, but that he did not copy it and could not remember its date. The plaintiff produced no other testimony as to the time when the letter was written or received. letter read as follows: "Home, Sabbath P.M. My Dear Sister: Having a postal to send you, thought you would pardon me if I should add a few lines. I am lonely to-day and should be so happy if you were here to chat with me. Since I wrote you I have taken a very short vacation. Left home Thursday at 3.40 for Holyoke, Mass., stopped over night with cousins in North Adams. Next day went on to Holyoke and returned last eve. I had as pleasant a time as one would naturally have all alone. Bought quite a bill of stationery. Saw Mr. Dr. Hemner a few moments. Weather was terrible hot and some rain. Tuesday has been more comfortable. My dear sister, it does seem so strange to have you away from here and Castleton too. grows more lonely each day. It

The

It

seems some times as if I never was to see you again. Saw Judge Bromley on the train last eve., says he heard from pretty good source that Prof. Leavenworth and Miss Wardsworth were to be married before school opened. This is all

a secret. What do you think about it, wouldn't we have some talking to do if was to carry you to Castleton to-night? Must not write more now. Wish you could see my sweet peas; they are just immense. Wish I could pick you some to-night. Lucy, I wish you could have heard Mr. B. last night. It seemed just the thing for you. Of course we always find some one else for the coat to fit. He said rash promises were far better broken than kept. I do so wish you were back at Castleton. You cannot think how strange it seems to me coming through there one week ago Sunday eve., to think I could perhaps never stop there as I have so many times and receive your pleasant welcome. I think you had better come back. I mean just what I say and I am sure unless you feel different from what I think you do that it is your solemn duty to come. Wouldn't we all try to be happy once more? You do not know how much I miss you. But I must not say so, must I? Would send you some sweet peas if it would do. We have lots of them and they do look so fine from my window where I am writing. But I must close. I will only add, that if you do not like Mr. Forbes I think it very unkind in him to ask you to leave your school and sacrifice so much for him. Love to Herbert and much for yourself, from Brother Frank." The court ruled that there was no evidence tending to show that the letter was written or received between July 30, 1890, when the contract was made, and the May following, when Miss Wells left the plaintiff's service, and excluded the letter; to which the plaintiff excepted. The court also

excluded, against the plaintiff's exception, the deposition of B. G. Howe, the substance of which is stated in the opinion. Miss Wells and a deceased wife of the plaintiff and a deceased wife of the defendant, were sisters. The defendant was married to Miss Wells in May, 1892.

Horace W. Lore, for the plaintiff. Henry A. Harman and George E. Lawrence, for the defendant.

MUNSON, J.-On the thirtieth day of July, 1890, Lucy Wells contracted with the plaintiff to become his housekeeper upon the happening of a certain contingency. She entered the plaintiff's service under this contract on the eighth day of November, 1890, and remained in it until the first of May, 1891. The plaintiff claims that she was enticed from his service by the defendant. The plaintiff offered evidence of the contents of an undated letter in the defendant's handwriting, which was found on a stand in Miss Wells' room during her stay at the plaintiff's, having with it an envelope which had the appearance of being new. The court excluded this evidence on the ground that there was no testimony tending to show that the letter was written after the thirtieth of July, 1890, the date of Miss Wells' contract with the plaintiff. It doubtless might have been held that there was no evidence tending to show that it was written after the eighth of November, the day Miss Wells entered upon her service; for the

letter itself shows that it was written just after a period of extreme heat, and while the sweet peas visible from the writer's window were in full bloom. But a further consideration is necessary to determine whether there was evidence tending to show that it was written after July thirtieth, the date of the contract. The whole burden of the letter is the writer's regret for Miss Wells' absence, and for the prospect of her continued absence from Castleton, where she had been teaching. The last sentence connects the plaintiff by name with the subject matter of the writer's regret. "If you do not like Mr. Forbes, I think it very unkind in him to ask you to leave your school and sacrifice so much for him." If this stood alone, it might seem to point to some proposition made, rather than to an arrangement actually entered into. But the writer had just before expressed his regret that she had not heard the recent remark of another, that "rash promises were far better broken than kept," saying, "it seemed just the thing for you." When the two

are taken together they seem to refer to something which Miss Wells has agreed to do for the plaintiff which is inconsistent with the continuance of her work as a teacher. It must therefore be held that the letter itself affords evidence that it was written after the contract above referred to was made. . . .

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

[Attempted blackmail by sending threatening letters. The Duke of Marlborough had received three threatening letters, in close succession, demanding benefits, and appointing an interview. The Duke kept the appointments. Each letter showed apparently a knowledge of the Duke's conduct at the prior

occasion. The accused being present on all three occasions, and no other person, he was arrested and charged].

The Duke of Marlborough sworn. Duke of Marlborough. — I received this letter from an unknown hand, dated the 29th of November, and directed to me, appointing me