Tr. 287) was due simply to the fact that they were among the remnants of the old nobility, whom it was Wolsey's policy to exterminate. Buckingham was condemned upon the testimony of discharged servants, who had been kept in confinement, with death and the rack staring them in the face. At last in the course of retribution Wolsey himself fell. He might truly say that had he served God as diligently as he had served the king he would not have been given over in his gray hairs. Although Wolsey was far surpassed in iniquity by some of his successors in power, he received, as he confessed, his "just reward."

Anne Boleyn was murdered by a tribunal presided over by her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk; and Henry VIII., under the lead of Thomas Cromwell, started out, under the guise of reformation in religion, on his career of lust, confiscation and murder.

The martyrdom of More, Fisher and the monks of the Charter House (1 St. Tr. 385) would alone suffice to bury the reign in infamy. The real crime of Sir Thomas More and of Bishop Fisher was that their rectitude smote the conscience of the king and his guilty paramour. More was guilty of no seditious act, nor disloyal word. He and Fisher had been sent to the Tower for treason in not taking the oath as to the Act of Succession. More was willing to swear loyalty to the successors of Queen Anne, but refused to subscribe to the part of the act which declared Henry's subsequent marriage valid. Cromwell and several privy councillors examined More in prison, and tried in vain to induce him either to own the king's supremacy in direct terms or to deny it. Then the venal and lying solicitor-general, Rich, sought to trap him in private. The indictment charged him with refusing to answer directly whether he would accept the king as head of the church; with having written. Fisher that "the act of Parliament was like a sword with two edges; if a man answered

one way it would confound his soul, and if the other way, it would confound his body," and with having spoken treasonable words to Rich. On his trial the aged chancellor admitted that he had disliked the king's second marriage, and had told the king so when asked for his opinion. If it was an offense, he said, to answer the king truly, he had already been punished enough, for he had been fifteen months in prison and had lost all his estates. He asserted that he had done nothing against the act of Parliament; indeed, to avoid offense he had refused to say anything about it. Laws cannot punish for silence, he claimed; only for words or deeds. God alone could judge the secrets of the heart. In answer to the lying perversions of Rich, he replied in his dignified and impressive way: "If I were a man, my lords, that had no regard to my oath, I had no occasion to be here at this time (as is well known to everybody) as a criminal; and if this oath, Mr. Rich, which you have taken, be true, then I pray I may never see God's face, which, were it otherwise, is an imprecation I would not be guilty of to gain the whole world." But the noble old man's virtues condemned him.

Bishop Fisher, who was dying in the Tower with age and sickness, was trapped by Rich into a technical admission of guilt in saying that the king neither was nor could be supreme head of the church.

The Abbots who refused to surrender to the royal exactions and confiscations were exterminated in a manner thus described in Cromwell's notebook: "Item-The Abbot of Reading to be sent down to be tried and executed at Reading with his accomplices. Item -The Abbot of Glaston to be tried at Glaston and also to be executed there, with his accomplices. Item-To see that the evidence be well sorted and the indictments well drawn against the said Abbots and their accomplices. Item-To send Gendon to the Tower to be racked."

of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton in 1554 (1 St. Tr. 869). The proposed marriage of Mary with Philip aroused great opposition, culminating in Wyatt's rebellion to prevent the marriage by force. Mary resolved to exterminate opposition in her usual bloodthirsty manner. Gibbets were erected all over London, and the Tower was so full of State prisoners that Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer had to be crowded into one cell. The rack was freely used to extort confessions. The shocking cruelty which characterized the queen's vengeance brought about a reaction in Throckmorton's case. Throckmorton did everything that the other rebels had done, save that he did not take the field with them. Yet he was acquitted. The report of his trial is the first we have that is full enough to give a fair idea of the procedure. The evidence against him consisted of the reading of alleged confessions wrung from other prisoners, some of whom had been executed. Only such parts of Throckmorton's own statement as told against him were read at the trial. To his request that the whole statement might be read, Sergeant Staunford pertinently replied that it would be a waste of time. On his request that the treason statute of Edward VI., upon which he relied, be read, Sir Nicholas Hare, the Master of the Rolls, observed that "it appertaineth not for us to provide books for you; neither sit we here to be taught by you." Throckmorton defended himself with presence of mind and

with great energy. So warm became the running fight between the crown counsel and the prisoner that the former appealed to the court for protection. "I was never interrupted thus in my life," said the attorneygeneral, "nor I never knew any thus suffered to talk as this prisoner is suffered. Some of us will come no more to the bar an we be thus handled." Chief Justice Bromley finally summed up by reading to the jury all the evidence that bore against the prisoner and omitting all the prisoner's answers and explanations. Throckmorton closed with an earnest, pathetic address, full of texts. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Thereupon the chief justice said to them, "Remember yourselves better; have you considered substantially the whole evidence laid against the prisoner? The matter doth touch the Queen's highness and yourselves also; take good heed what you do." The jurors replied that they had found the prisoner not guilty agreeably to their consciences; whereupon they were committed to the Tower. Eight of their number, who stoutly refused to submit, were afterwards taken before the Star Chamber and heavily fined. This treatment evidently had the desired effect, for Throckmorton's brother was tried shortly afterwards on the same evidence and convicted. Sir Nicholas, though acquitted, was sent back to the Tower on the chief justice's statement that there were other charges against him.

66 IF you've sed all your goin' to say, we'll

set down right here." This announcement was made by Lemuel Ryder, attorneyat-law, to opposing counsel, Henry Partridge, in the case of Whitby v. Slocum, which was an action of contract wherein the said Whitby sought to recover from defendant, Joel Slocum, forty dollars for gross misrepresentation of a sorrel horse which said Slocum sold one Jonathan Whitby expressly with intent to defraud.

The court-room at Colebrook Junction was crowded with anxious spectators eager to know just how this much-talked-of case would terminate. Trial Justice Hiram Thompson was on the bench and said, "D' yo rest, Hennery?" Being given to understand that he did, his honor addressed Mr. Ryder with, "an' you sed ez how you wuz through Lem;" and without waiting to have this confirmed continued, "Bein' ez how the two learned gentlemen fer the plaintiff an' defense hez got all done talking, I'll jest take a hand in this myself." Whereupon his honor shifted his cud around and wiping his glasses said, "Fust thing ter consider in this yere case is, ther motive. Ef Joel was out ter beat John, wuz it fer pure love of gain or was there a motive hitched to it? Joel says he hain't got nothin' agin John an' 'twas a fair trade. John says ther hoss hed the heaves an' was foundered. Now we all on us know what Joel is in a hoss trade, but thet ain't here nor ther; the question is, what wuz his motiff 'sides ther money end of it? 'Pears ter me ez near ez kin be found aout thet Joel an' John warn't on speakin' terms fer quite a spell afore this hoss trade. Then we find John goin' ter law an' tryin' ter mek Joel pay forty dollars fer misrepresentin' a sorrel

hoss. This wuz what might be called a blood trade, ef John hed got the better of Joel he'd a been satisfied, but Joel beat John so John hollers fer the law on et. Well, comin' ter the motiff, strikes me thet 'bout three year ago or mebbe it wor three year an' a half, anyhow et wuz 'bout the time Joe Springer put ther new sills under his silo, John wuz helpin' me cut my fodder corn et the time, an' one mornin' long bout sun up John druv over and sed thet Joel's folks wuz down with ther whoopin' cough and that he an' Suse Ann wuz goin' to tend out on 'em. Well, et 'pears thet John an' his women folks mixed up a sort of soothing syrup by mistake and give et ter Joel an' his folks, 'fore the doctor got there, thet pretty nigh put 'em all out of business. Well, ever sense thet time, John an' Joel ain't sed nothin' but what wuz bad agin one 'nother.

"Now it strikes me thet Joel must have knowed thet John wuz doin' the best he could, but Joel held that John hed evil intent. Now this yere tribunal ain't here to duscuss family troubles, but ter say what's the right and wrong of it, so without goin' into ther details of this matter beyond what we think justifies the case et hand, the court finds that one person should harbour no ill will agin' a neighbor an' thet Jonathan Whitby is guilty of lack of common sense in not knowin' a heevy hoss, an' also et finds thet Joel Slocum is guilty of takin' advantage of same an' orders Joel to pay the cost of court an' ter trade back with John. 'Sides this findin'," hereupon Judge Thompson leaned back and stroked his chin whiskers, "this yere court would ask as a pussonel favor thet Jonathan an' Joel shake han's an' let bygones be bygones."

IT

T does not occur to young people engaged in that most charmingly fascinating occupation-courting-generally looked upon as an interesting and entertaining pastime, that "old father antic, the law," has anything to do with the matter or any right to interfere-in short, courts are presumed to have nothing to do with courting.

But the truth is that, contrary to these presumptions, courtship often involves serious questions of the law, and, notwithstanding the poet's sentiment that

"Love rules the Court, the Camp, the Grove, And men below, and saints above,"

Cupid is frequently summoned before Themis to receive the sentence of that stern Goddess of Justice.

If the courtship results in marriage, a pure question of fact arises, namely, Is marriage a failure? But, if the courtship does not reach as far as the altar; if, after engagement or conduct on the part of one or both of the parties from which an engagement may be inferred, one or the other breaches the contract, a liability to the other arises.

Although in early times in England specific performance of a contract to marry was decreed by the spiritual courts, compelling a celebration in facie ecclesiae, now, since Lord Hardwicke's Act, the only remedy is by suit for damages.

Ever since Margaret Gardyner and her daughter, Alice, brought what is reputed to have been the first breach of promise suit against John Keche of Yppswych, showing that he, the said John Keche, had received a sum of money on condition of his marrying the aforesaid Alice, and that he had married Joan Bloys, "ageyne all good reason

and conscience," breach of promise suits have been recognized among all Englishspeaking peoples. Lord Holt enforced it at Common Law, holding that "the wounded spirit, the unmerited disgrace, and the probable solitude, which would be the probable consequence of desertion after a long courtship, were considered to be as legitimate claims for pecuniary damages as the loss of reputation by slander or the wounded pride in slight assaults and batteries."

These matrimonial contracts are sui generis. No grim-visaged lawyer draws up a formal contract to be executed; no notary pries into the intents and purposes of the parties and certifies the same under his official seal; no go-between Pandarus is present to hold the hands of Troilus and Cresida and solemnly pronounce:

"A bargain made; seal it, seal it; I'll be the witness."

No-in the vine-clad arbor, or behind the protecting screens of parlor walls, in some shady nook, or in the dim moonlight deep. down some lonely dell, "far sunken from the healthy breath of morn and eve's one star," there these engagements are softly whispered and the contract sealed with a kiss.

For these reasons, while the making of the contract is a question of proof, it need not be proved in totidem verbis, and is often inferred from the actions, language and conduct of the parties, and it is difficult to tell under what circumstances the court would be justified in finding that a promise had been made. Many a young man, not fatally bent on matrimony, would sometimes be surprised to find that his language, intended only as a compliment to some charming dam