Page:The Granite Monthly Volume 6.djvu/212

 k;o

��THE GRANITE MONTHLY.

��JEREMIAH MASON'S LAW ARGUMENTS.

��BY GEORGE W. NESMITH. LL. D.

��Hon. Jeremiah Mason was a mem- ber of the House of Representatives in December, A. D., 1820, and while standing in the gallery, we heard him state the proposition that in his experience he knew of no little law cases. That all alike, whatever the amount involved might be, turned upon the same golden hinges of jus- tice. And it was sometimes as diffi- cult to ascertain the true merits of a case, or trace the accurate boundaries of right and wrong, where only five dollars might be involved, as where thousands were at stake. The ques- tion then pending before the House referred to the amount of litigated claims of which a certain court should by law have jurisdiction. Now at the January term of the superior court in Merrimack county, in A. D. 1824, Mr. Mason argued a cause with much ability, where only three dollars was claimed by his client, and the evidence presented difficulties he could not solve to the satisfaction of the jury. It was a just appeal, wherein one Grossman, an inn-holder in the town of Andover, was original plaintiff ; and one Lowell, a schoolmaster of Salis- bury, was defendant. Both sides prose- cuted this case with much zeal. We state the facts as briefly as possible : In the winter o^ 1822 Lowell was teaching school in his native school district on Raccoon hill in Salisbury. On one Saturday his neighbor, Kezar, who had some business to transact in West Andover, proposed to Lowell to convey him in his sleigh to the same place, together with another young man, about eighteen years of age, whose name we do not recollect. In the course of the afternoon the three called at the plaintiff's inn. Lowell, according to the custom of the times, being a passenger, felt bound to treat, and called for three drinks accordingly. In payment he delivered a bank bill to

��the bar-keeper, and here commenced the dispute. The plaintiffs bar-keeper was a young man about twenty years of age, and testified in substance that it was a three dollar bill, and that he found himself unable to make the change, and returned it to Lowell with the request to get it changed ; that soon afterward the plaintiff, Crossman, came into the room, and took the bill from Lowell, and returned the balance due him. He testified further, that after retaining the bill for six or ten days, it was ascertained the bill was counterfeit, and that within two weeks, in company with Crossman, they called upon Lowell and tendered the bad bill to him, demanding good money in re- turn. Lowell refused to take it back, avowing he never had the bill, and that it was a good two dollar bill which he had let him have. Such was the plaintiff's testimony. The defendant's testimony was from Kezar and the aforesaid young man from Salisbury. Kezar said after the bar-keeper returned the bill to Lowell, he delivered it forth- with to him, requesting his aid. He, Kezar, examined his own money, and found himself unable to change it, and soon returned it to Lowell. He, was positive it was a two dollar bill. Could not tell of what bank. It look- ed like a good or genuine one, though he did not pretend to be a good judge of money. The other Salisbury boy said he did not have the bill in his hands, but then understood, from the conver- sation had in his presence between Kezar and Lowell, that the bill passed to Crossman by Lowell was a two dollar bill. He also stated that Cross- man finally came into the room and took it from Lowell and took pay for his liquor, and gave back the change to Lowell.

At that time the law did not allow the parties to the suit to testify. Hon. Ezekiel Webster had commenced this

�� �