him on oath. Here, then, true or false, was
a rational suspicion; and every man has a right
to a rational suspicion of his neighbour, and even
to utter it within due limits: and, if he overstep
those, the party slandered has his legal remedy;
and, if he omits his legal remedy, and makes an
attempt of doubtful legality not to confute but
to stifle the voice of reasonable suspicion, shrewd
men will suspect all the more. But then comes
a distinct and respectable kind of evidence for
the defendant; he urges that the plaintiff was
going to sign away his property to his wife's
relations. Now, this was proved, and a draft
of the deed put in and sworn to. This
taken singly, has a very extraordinary look:
still, you must consider the plaintiff's reasonable
suspicion that money belonging to the Dodds
had passed irregularly to the Hardies, and then
the wonder is much diminished. Young and
noble minds have in every age done these
generous, self-denying, and delicate acts. The
older we get, the less likely we are to be
incarcerated for a crime of this character. But we
are not to imprison youth and chivalry because
we have outgrown them. To go from particulars
to generals, the defendant, on whom the proof
lies, has advanced hearsay and conjecture, and
not put their originators into the box. And the
plaintiff, on whom the proof does not lie, has
advanced an overpowering amount of evidence
that he was sane at the time of his incarceration:
this was proved to demonstration by friends,
strangers, and by himself." Here the judge
analysed the testimony of several of the plaintiff's
witnesses.

"As to the parties themselves, it is curious
how they impersonated, so to speak, their
respective lines of argument. The representative
of evidence and sound reasoning, though
accused of insanity, was clear, precise, frank,
rational, and dignified in the witness-box. The
party who relied on hearsay and conjecture,
was as feeble as they are; he was almost
imbecile, as you observed; and looking at both
parties, it seems monstrous that the plaintiff
should be the one confined as a lunatic, and
the defendant allowed to run wild and lock
up his intellectual superiors. If he means to
lock them all up, who is safe? (Laughter.)
The only serious question, I apprehend, is
on what basis the damages ought to be assessed.
The plaintiff's counsel has made a powerful
appeal to your passions, and calls for vengeance.
Now I must tell you you have no right to make
yourselves ministers of vengeance, nor even to
punish the defendant in a suit of the kind: still
less ought you to strike the defendant harder than
you otherwise would, in the vague hope of
hitting indirectly the true mover of the defendant
and the other puppets. Let me solemnly warn
you against that unfortunate suggestion of the
learned counsel's. If the plaintiff wants
vengeance, the criminal law offers it. After
benefiting by your verdict, he can still indict the guilty
party or parties. Meanwhile he comes here, not
for vengeance, but for compensation, and
restoration to that society which he is every way
fitted to adorn. More than this—and all our
sympathies—it is not for us to give him. But
then the defendant's counsel went too far the
other way. His client, he says, is next door to an
idiot, and so, forsooth, his purse must be spared
entirely. This is all very well if it could be done
without ignoring the plaintiff and his just claim to
compensation. If the defendant, instead of being
weak-minded, were an idiot or a lunatic, it would
protect him from punishment as a felon, but not
for damages in a suit. A sane man is not to be
falsely imprisoned by a lunatic without full
compensation from the lunatic or his estate; à
fortiori, he is not to be so imprisoned by a mere
fool without just compensation. Supposing your
verdict then to be for the plaintiff, I think
vindictive damages would be unfair on this feeble
defendant, who has acted recklessly, but under
an error, and without malice or bad faith. On
the other hand, nominal or even unsubstantial
damages would be unjust to the plaintiff, and
perhaps leave in some minds a doubt I am sure
you do not entertain, as to the plaintiff's perfect
sanity during the whole period of his life."

As soon as his lordship had ended, the foreman
of the jury said their minds were quite made up
long ago.

Si-lence in the court.

"We find for the plaintiff, with damages three
thousand five hundred pounds.

The verdict was received with some surprise
by the judge, and all the lawyers, except Mr.
Colt, and by the people with acclamation; in the
midst of which Mr. Colt announced that the
plaintiff had just gained his first class at Oxford.
"I wish him joy," said the judge.

CHAPTER LVIII.

THE verdict was a thunder-clap to Richard
Hardie; he had promised Thomas to bear him
blameless. The Old Turks, into which he had
bought at 72, were down to 71, and that implied
a loss of five thousand pounds. On the top of
all this came Mr. Compton's letter neatly copied
by Colls: Richard Hardie was doubly and trebly
ruined.

Then in his despair and hate he determined to
baffle them all, ay, and sting the hearts of some
of them once more.

He would give Peggy his last shilling; write a
line to Alfred, another to Julia, assuring them
he had no money, and they had killed him; and
with that leave them both the solemn curse of a
dying father, and then kill himself.

Not to be interrupted in his plan, he
temporised with Mr. Compton; wrote that, if the
Receipt was really signed by his agent, of course
the loss must fall on him; it was a large sum,
but he would sell out and do his best, in ten
days from date. With this he went and bought
a pistol, and at several chemists' shops a little
essential oil of almonds: his plan was to take the
poison, and if it killed without pain well and