The Hon. Jeremiah Mason. prolonged repast, called on the new member to stand forth. On his complying, the vener able Judge delivered to him acharge, accom panied by the right hand of fellowship. Colonel Moore, to whose place and prac tice he succeeded, was a man of ability, but too fond of strong drink. He was a gradu ate of Cambridge (Harvard) College at a period when the institution "was more dis tinguished," wrote Mr. Mason, " for produc ing good fellows than good scholars." Moore, with much benevolence of disposition, was very dissipated and very popular. He had procured the establishment in the town of a lodge of Free Masons, of which he was Mas ter, and he earnestly advised young Mason to join this lodge. " Accordingly," says the latter, " I went to several of their parties, and, fortunately for me, was disgusted with their coarseness and rude manners. To get out of the scrape, I gave them as good a treat as I could at my cottage, and had no more to do with them, assigning for my ex cuse that my time was so entirely occupied with my business and my studies that I had none to spare. From the Masonic lodge I kept free." It appears by this that the young man considered himself a better Free Mason in a lodge exclusively his own, and the people appear to have adopted a similar view. It was during the earlier part of his resi dence in Westmoreland (of three years only) that a man came to his office seeking to prosecute for larceny an impecunious neigh bor, who, during his absence, had taken away two young pigs the complainant had to sell. Mr. Mason was out of town, and the student who attended to the office business, doubting the propriety of a charge of theft, advised an action for trover. This was commeneed, the two pigs being therein alleged to be of the value of one dollar. The Deputy Sheriff, in serving the writ, found no person at the house, therefore tucked the summons be tween the door and its sill, where he thought it entirely safe. The plaintiff, who was a
499
near neighbor, saw this done, and as soon as the officer was out of sight, he went and stole the summons. The man who had taken the pigs, entirely unaware of the action against him, did not appear at court, and was consequently de faulted, and the first news he had of it was an execution. He made a great outcry against the court amongst his neighbors, which brought out the fact that another per son had seen the taking of the paper from under the door. The victim then went to Mr. Mason with his complaint. Finding that the summons had really been stolen, Mr. Mason offered to have the judgment and execution cancelled, and to let him have a trial for the pigs. Whatever his offense might be his neigh bor's against him was more culpable, he thought, and he was not alone in his view. Consequently he rejected the fair offer of Mr. Mason, and applied to the Legislature — then in session — to remedy his grievance. Without notice to the other party, the Legislature immediately passed an act direct ing the Magistrate to cite the plaintiff before him, set aside the default and try the action, and to allow to either party an appeal. Thus the Legislature was guilty of inciting useless litigation, and of debasing the Judi ciary. The plaintiff was cited, and Mason ap peared for him, denying the power of the Legislature to pass the act, and making an argument on the constitutional restraints of legislative power. The opposing counsel re plied by portraying the audaciousness of an attempt by an inferior magistrate to question the power of the Supreme Legislature. The Justice, jealous of his official dignity, and desirous of sustaining his high reputa tion for courage (having been an officer in the Revolutionary army) promptly pro nounced the act utterly void, and refused to obey it. The claim for an appeal was also disallowed by the Justice, who said that as the whole proceeding was void he had no
