The last, the seventeenth, is the most pleasant of all to record. John Young appeared, June 8, 1797, before Charles Stewart and A. Dumas, Notaries Public, in the former's office with the lad Rubin, and declared that he bought him from Mr. Dennis Dayly, August 15, 1795. He, as an encouragement to honesty and assiduity in Rubin, declared in the presence of the Notary, Charles Stewart, that if Rubin would faithfully serve him for seven years, he would give him his full and free liberty, and in the meantime would maintain and clothe him suitably and give him two and sixpence a month pocket money, but if he got drunk or absented himself from his service or neglected his master's business, he would forfeit all right to freedom. This was explained to Rubin, "who accepted with gratitude the generous offer." All parties, including the Notaries, signed the act, Rubin Young by his mark, so that the slave by good conduct and refraining from drunkenness would achieve his freedom, June 8, 1804. I have discovered certain Court proceedings copied in the Canadian Archives at Ottawa,[22] which have not been made public in any way and which are of great interest in this connection. A short historical note will enable my readers to understand the proceedings more clearly. After the Conquest of Canada, 1759-60, for a few years the country was under military rule. The three Districts of French times, Quebec, Montreal, and Three Rivers, were retained, each with its Governor or Lieutenant Governor. To administer justice, the officers of militia in each Parish, generally speaking, were constituted courts of first instance with an appeal to a council of the superior officers in the British Army in the city, this court having also original jurisdiction. On July 20, 1762, a council sat, as of original jurisdiction, composed of Lieut. Col. Beckwith, Captains Falconer, Suby, Dunbar and Osbourne, to hear the plea of a poor Negro called André against a prominent merchant of Montreal, Gershon Levy. The proceedings, recorded in French, are somewhat hard to decipher after a hundred and sixty years have elapsed but well repay the labor of examination. André asked to be accorded his liberty, claiming that Levy had bought him of one Best, but that Best had the right to his services for only four years which had now expired. Levy appeared and claimed that André could not prove his allegation, but that he (Levy) had bought him from Best in good faith and without any knowledge of the alleged limitation of the right to his services. Of course, Best could sell only the right he had and it became a simple question of fact. The court heard the parties, ordered André to remain with his alleged master until he had proved by witnesses or by certificate that he "had been bound to the said Best for four years only, after the expiry of which time he was to have his liberty."