pregnant interrogations, and accusatory annotations ; -all which were pronounced, according to play-book phrase, aside, and in a different tone of voice, in order that his hearers might distinctly understand what language was mine, and what was his. He omitted, however, to read the sentence in which allusion was made to "Dr. Rumpfoozle and Mrs. Ninicompips," those mellifluous names which he was in the habit of pronouncing on the stage with peculiar distinctness. and grace of gesticulation. The charge that his entertainments were composed of materials that were old, stale, and vulgar, seemed to be the principal grievance of which he complained; though he descanted at considerable length on the fact that the words "ladies" and "gentlemen" were printed, as he said, " in Italics with a sneer." On the Monday following the United States marshal presented to me a summons to appear before the circuit court, to be held in Boston, on the fifteenth day of May then next succeeding, to answer to Charles Mathews, in a plea of the case, &c. The damages were laid in the writ at TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS.* Mathews had left the city before the service of the summons, and never returned. Mr. Manners, the British consul, was entrusted with the management of the case for Mathews, but it never came to trial. A few days after the opening of the court, a note was received by my counsel, the Hon. Daniel Webster, from the plaintiff's counsel, stating that he should not enter it. And this was the end of the matter. The writ in this case was elaborately drawn, by Augustus Peabody, Esq. The copy of it is now in my possession. It is from three to four yards in In December, 1823, I was again called to the bar of the Municipal Court, to answer to an indictment found on the complaint of Alexis Eustaphieve, the Russian Consul. This gentleman had resided in Boston a number of years. At one time he was a prolific writer in the newspapers, on politics, literature, law, and almost every subject that newspaper discussion embraces. He was celebrated for his criticisms on the drama and theatrical performances, on concerts, music, &c. and had written two or three dramatic pieces, founded on incidents in Russian history. He was also somewhat proud of his superiority in playing on the violin, and of his success in his favorite amusement of fishing. In brief, he was, or supposed himself to be, the autocrat of the fashionable world of Boston; and, of course, that world was not without individuals who sometimes doubted the correctness of his decisions, and became a little restive under his assumed supremacy. The indictment here spoken of alleged the publication of three libels. The first was in the Galaxy of September 1, 1820,- a communication upon concerts. The alleged libelous words were contained in an incidental remark of the writer, censuring the severity which was sometimes exercised by parents in attempting to render children, prematurely, rapid performers on the piano-forte. The consul considered it a reflection on himself, (perhaps the writer intended it as such;) though no name was mentioned, nor was there any hint, or innuendo, that could lead any one, not length Several years ago, I believe after the death of Mathews, Mr. Peabody informed me that he had never been able to obtain, from Mathews or his agent, any compensation for the labor of drawing this instrument. familiar with his domestic administration, to apply the IN THE PRESS Of Typeoff & Strikemoff, and will soon be published by Wit- THE LIFE AND OPINIONS OF U. STUFFY. - 1 vol. 4to. imperial foolscap, bound in Russia. CONTENTS. Chap. I. His birth and infancy-Sucks a bear - Romulus and Promotion Chap. II. Joins a foreign embassy as second violin autocrat. Chap. III. His arrival there, and opinion of the inhabitants- Chap. IV. Goes on a fishing party to the Baltic-Catches a - &c. Turns literary again. Chap. V. His thoughts on plays and players - Does n't like Hamlet Presumes there never was such a man - Finds his mistake after reading Kerr Porter-First one he ever made-Criticises Kean-Dislikes his Macbeth; particularly his reading of the passage, "Approach thou like the rugged Russian hear; take any shape but that," &c. - Finds fault with his reading - Reading and acting one and the same thing-Instances in point, Mr. Brown's Pyrrhus.* Chap. VI. His dislike to Caledonian literature — And why; his being taught to dance to the Scotch fiddle, and the superiority of the latter to his own- "Burnt bear dreads hot iron " Condemns the author of Waverley, supposing him to be a Scot - A set-to between the big bear and a dandy - Pro and con concerning the same — The contest unnatural, his antagonist heing a fisher†"Two of a trade can't agree "Further difficulties between the same as to the relative merit of an Imperial fisher and a King fisher. Chap. VII. Stuffy's finale-Last seen of him, the end of his fishing-pole turning a corner-Drowned off both ends of WestBoston bridge - Previous death of his wet nurse, and their probable meeting - Reflections in general, by the biographer, on fiddling, fishing, poetry, prosing, de-bating, pole-liteness, the north pole, polar bear, pole-atics, and the aurora-borealis. The third article was a paragraph entitled "Record of Fashion," in the Galaxy of November 7, 1823. It was a brief notice of a disturbance which happened at a public ball, which spoke of "the rugged Russian bear" as a conspicuous actor in the affray. It was immediately on the publication of this paragraph that Mr. Eustaphieve laid his complaint before the grand jury. Whether he thought this more libelous than the other articles, published, severally three and two years * Alluding to the performance of the Distrest Mother, in which Mr. Brown read the part of Pyrrhus, on account of the indisposition of the actor who was to perform the part. † Dr. Fisher, an Englishman, employed by certain families who preferred private tuition for their sons to the public Latin School - celebrated for his dress and deportment in the extreme of dandyism. before, or had been, during those three years, treasuring up his resentment to be let out when he supposed the measure of my iniquity was full, is a question on which I was never informed. So far as I knew, no prosecution had been threatened. The trial of this indictment took place, January 9, 1824. The prosecution was conducted by J. T. Austin, Esq. the county attorney. My counsel for defence were the Hon. Benjamin Gorham and S. L. Knapp, Esq. Judge Quincy, who was on the Bench at my trial on Maffitt's prosecution, had resigned, and his place had been filled by Peter O. Thacher, Esq. In his instructions to the jury, Judge Thacher laid down principles of law entirely different from those held by Judge Quincy. Under his direction, an escape from conviction was not expected; yet the jury did acquit on the first count in the indictment; on the second they rendered a verdict of GUILTY: the third was dis covered to be at variance from the article in the paper, and, after argument, the court decided that the variation was fatal. Having been convicted on the second count, the court sentenced me to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, and to give a bond with two sureties to keep the peace one year. From this sentence I appealed to the Supreme Court. At the close of this trial, the county attorney informed the court that Mr. Eustaphieve had instructed him to lay the subject of the third count of the indictment, which had been set aside for informality, again before the grand jury. Accordingly a second edition of the indictment, "revised, amended, and improved," was procured, and tried at the next March term of the |