"Well, Esquire, I think if you do not manage this case carefully you will have a devil of a muss among these fellows." "What do you think I had better do?" says the Esquire. "If it was my case, as it is yours, I would call the court as soon as possible, and call the parties. McLame claims to know something of law, and he will plead his own case, or get some one that don't know any more about law than he does, and they will call for a nonsuit on account of some illegality in the warrant or pleadings, and the first show you have, give them a nonsuit, and decide against your own people. This will satisfy McLame and his party, and the matter will end there. The suit is a civil one, and should have been by notice and summons, for 'forcible entry and detainer,' instead of an arrest and confinement as a criminal. They may attempt to make false imprisonment out of it. If they do, I would settle it the best way I could." I never learned the exact manner in which this case was settled. I think McLame received some compensation and the matter was settled. But the Esquire never fully recovered from the effect of this legal attempt at provisional American wisdom, as he came as near involving the two governments in a national war in the San Juan boundary question, in 1849, as he did the country, in attempting to protect the unreasonable claims of the company's servants in 1846. As to law books or legal knowledge, the country in those early times could not boast of having an extensive law library or profound lawyers, and, as was to be expected, some new and strange lawsuits occurred. Of the following case we have no personal knowledge, and can only give it as related to us by parties present. T. J. Hubbard, of Champoeg, had a native wife. She was claimed and coveted by a neighbor of his, who threatened to take her from him. Hubbard was armed, and prepared to defend his own supposed or real right of possession from his covetous neighbor, who attempted to enter his cabin window, or space where a window might be put (in case the owner had one to go there). Hubbard shot him while attempting to enter, and submitted to a trial. Rev. Mr. Leslie presided as judge. A jury was called, and the statements of all parties that pretended to know any thing about the case made. The verdict was, "Justifiable homicide." The petition which was gotten up about this time, says that "theft, murder, and infanticide, are increasing among them to an alarming extent." A fact was unquestionably stated in the petition, that justice and virtue were comparative strangers in the country. Despotism and oppression, with false notions of individual rights and personal liberty, were strongly at variance. The leading men, or such as one would naturally suppose to be guides of the erring, seemed to have fixed a personal standard for virtue, justice, and right, not difficult for the most abandoned to comply with. CHAPTER XXVII.