there day after day, and appeared manifestly dissatisfied. Finally his patience deserted him, and he indulged in the injudicious remark that in his opinion his tenants were a pair of swindling vagabonds, and that they should be incontinently ejected.
Following this remark the landlord stepped out, stopped hastily out of the door, followed by two or three sticks of stove-wood stolen from his own wood pile. Consolation came to him in the form of one of the lawyers, who apologized for the indignity and denounced the conduct of the other, a wicked disgraceful man, thenceforward no longer his associate. Dissolution of partnership was the least reparation he could make the landlord; moreover, he professed to be an honest man; he would pay the rent himself, though parting with his shirt should be the consequence.
But would not the landlord sue and eject the impudent vagabond. It was a simple case, and lawless lawyers should be taught behavior as well as cutthroats. Yes, it was his duty as a wealthy, highminded citizen, who had the interests of our great American institutions at heart, to do it. The landlord did not like the law, but anger, interest, and pride all urged him on. Suit was brought; the landlord's attorney argued the case for several days; he had plenty of time, he wished to brush up his legal lore, astonish the natives, and earn the respectable sum which reputation and the honor of his profession compelled him to charge his client. The justice decided against the landlord, that being the only way to secure his fee—two ounces. The much-abused tenant then sued the landlord for defamation of character, and summoned his associate as witness.
The unhappy landlord now saw clearly that he had fallen among thieves. Having so long and so sweetly enjoyed cheating, he now might take the pleasure of being cheated. He saw that graceful discretion was better than blustering valor; so he told his tenants that they were welcome to their
