14,000 upon him, and, while as yet unaware
of this letter, the plaintiff heard David Dodd accuse Richard Hardie of
possessing improperly L. 14,000, the identical sum. At least, he swears
to this, and as Richard Hardie was not called to contradict him, you are
at liberty to suppose that Richard Hardie had some difficulty in
contradicting him on oath. Here, then, true or false, was a rational
suspicion, and every man has a right to a rational suspicion of his
neighbour, and even to utter it within due limits; and, if he overstep
those, the party slandered has his legal remedy; but if he omits his
legal remedy, and makes an attempt of doubtful legality not to confute,
but to stifle, the voice of reasonable suspicion, shrewd men will suspect
all the more. But then comes a distinct and respectable kind of evidence
for the defendant; he urges that the plaintiff was going to sign away his
property to his wife's relations. Now, this was proved, and a draft of
the deed put in and sworn to. This taken singly has a very extraordinary
look. Still, you must consider the plaintiff's reasonable suspicion that
money belonging to the Dodds had passed irregularly to the Hardies, and
then the wonder is diminished.
Pages:
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251