Part 4

Kamloops, a place of fifteen years’ growth, at the junction of the North and South Thompson Rivers, is a prosperous town, with English residents living in the centre, and the Chinese at either end. Burrard Inlet lies to the north of the Fraser River, and here, at Port Moody, the finished line ends at present. But an extension to Vancouver, at the sea-entrance of Burrard Inlet, is being made, and will be finished next year. There are several settlements on the banks of the Inlet, where timber-mills are at work. One place is an Indian mission settlement, and has three hundred inhabitants.

Vancouver, the western terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway, has a very hopeful outlook at present. Being a wooden town, it was almost entirely burned in June 1886, but is now recovering from that serious fire. Streets are laid out, a substantial wharf has been built, and the trade in town-lots is described as brisk. Much of the cleared surface of the town is covered with stumps of the ‘big trees,’ spruce, pine, or cedar, which grew there; it costs from one hundred to one hundred and fifty pounds per acre to clear the ground of these stumps. One large pine, standing solitary in the town, was saved on the intercession of the Princess Louise, and has been rightly named after her. The Vancouver chief of police is a gigantic Highlandman, with a force of five men under him. Wood-cutting is the chief industry of this section, and Vancouver as a terminal city has great commercial possibilities.

In conclusion, the _Times_ correspondent does not hesitate to confirm the statement, that the Canadian Pacific Railway has ‘more good agricultural land, more coal, and more timber, between Winnipeg and the Pacific coast, than all the other Pacific railways combined, and that every part of the line from Montreal to the Pacific will pay.’

WAS IT MURDER?

I have thought it over and over, and cannot come to any definite conclusion. Was I justified in killing the man? If I was, I am a benefactor to some of my fellow-creatures; if I was not, I am a murderer. My readers shall have an opportunity of judging, and I hope their judgment may be lenient.

Some years ago, I was well off, and received the education and bringing-up of a gentleman; but partly through my own folly, and partly through unfortunate speculations, I gradually lost all my capital; and about two years ago I found myself penniless, and saw starvation grinning at me within measurable distance. Then I determined to attempt no longer to keep up appearances, but to try and earn a bare existence in any walk of life that was open to me. After some fruitless efforts and a good deal of the ‘hope deferred’ which ‘maketh the heart sick,’ I obtained, through the kindness of a gentleman connected with the Great Junction Railway, the position of stoker. I never was given to drink, so that I was well enough able to fulfil the lowly duties of my position. I am now a station-master; and it is during my few hours of leisure that I prepare this plain narrative for the decision of a discerning public.

It is a great point for a stoker to be on good terms with the engine-driver, and I generally found little trouble in making friends with my nearest travelling companion.

On the day when I went through the most disagreeable experience of my life, I was travelling from Padlington to Cowchester on the well-known—to railway employees—engine named ‘Pluto.’ She is a fine upstanding, bold sort of engine, and when in good temper, does her work right well. The engine-driver on this occasion was a man named John Morgan. I had not often travelled with him before, only two or three times, and I never could get on comfortably with him. He had been many years in the Company’s service, and bore an excellent character for steadiness, but was considered rather taciturn. He seemed to be always in the sulks, and was, I suppose, of a surly temper. Before we started, he hardly answered any remark I addressed to him, and seemed more surly than usual. Once when I took up a cloth to brighten one of Pluto’s taps, he called out to me in a savage tone: ‘Let her alone, can’t you. I’ll make her travel to-day without your bothering.’

I made him no answer, as I did not see the good of having a quarrel in the small space we were confined to. The train was to start at twelve noon, and before that time, we on the engine were all ready; but it was a quarter past twelve before we got the signal to move. There was such a crowd of people of all classes on the platform, that room could hardly be found for them in the train. However, at last the head-guard gave us the signal, and Morgan turned the handle, and we moved slowly and steadily out of the station. When we got well out into the country, Morgan turned to me and said shortly: ‘More coal.’

Now, in my opinion, no more coal was wanted, as there was quite enough in the fire to keep up the usual speed. However, as a stoker, I was only an underling, and must obey reasonable orders. So I stoked as bidden, and then curiously watched to see if the engine-driver would turn on full speed. He did nothing of the sort, but sat with his back to the boiler, and began to talk to me quite affably. Amongst other things, he said he was quite tired of this perpetual travelling, and that he meant to look out for a wife with a little money, and never set foot on an engine again. There was nothing at this time peculiar in his manner, except that he was more talkative than usual, and he would now and then turn half-round to the engine and call out: ‘Get on, old girl, get on!’ We had before us a run of an hour and a half, and by that time we were due at Blinton, a big junction, at which every train must stop; so we had plenty of time to talk.

About an hour after leaving Padlington, Morgan stopped suddenly in the middle of a sentence, and said: ‘Well, I must get to work now.’ Then he opened the firebox door and called out to me: ‘More coal.’

I expostulated with him, and pointed out that we were going at a high rate of speed, and would not need more coal before Blinton; but this seemed to excite him terribly. ‘Shovel it in!’ he roared, with an oath; ‘I’m going to make her travel.’

To pacify him, I took up a shovelful, and managed to upset a good deal of it before I reached the firebox.

‘You clumsy fool!’ he called out; ‘here, give it to me;’ and snatching the shovel out of my hands, he crammed on as much coal as he could get in.

I was beginning to get alarmed; and looking out over the well-known country—for I had travelled that journey many and many a time before—I saw that we were much nearer to Blinton than we ought to be at that hour. However, I thought it did not much matter, for the line was signalled clear in front of us, and the damage done was, as yet, simply a little waste of coal. In a few minutes, our speed increased enormously, and I calculated we were travelling at the rate of seventy miles an hour. I thought it was time to remonstrate; and turning to Morgan, I noticed that the indicator showed full speed. I called his attention to the fact, and begged him to reduce the speed, or we should run into Blinton without being able to stop.

‘Ha, ha!’ he cried in reply. ‘Stop! I’m never going to stop again! I told you I’d make her travel. What do you want to stop for?—Get on, old wench, get on!’ Then he burst into a hideous peal of laughter.

A cold sweat of absolute terror broke out on me as I realised the state of things. Here was a raving maniac, a far stronger man than myself, in charge of a train full of people. I bit my lips and clenched my hands, and tried to collect my scattered ideas and decide what was best to be done. Meanwhile, Morgan sat on a rail near the boiler flourishing a shovel and shouting uproariously. The train rushed on with incredible speed, not steadily and evenly, but with leaps and bounds, that threatened to cast the engine off the line at every yard. There was no doubt the man was as mad as a man could be, and he was also master of the situation. I made one effort to reach the handle by which the steam is turned off; but the madman was too sharp for me. ‘No, you don’t!’ he shouted. He brought his shovel down with a tremendous blow on the rail at my side, just missing my head. It was plain I could do nothing by force. Would stratagem be of any use?

I looked out to the country; time was running short; we were not more than twenty miles from Blinton Junction; and if we did not stop there, the whole train must inevitably be wrecked, and probably not one passenger would escape uninjured, and but few with their lives. I looked back to the train. Outside the windows were hands gesticulating, and frightened, alarmed faces. At the end of the train, the guard was waving a red flag. Something must be done, and by me, or we should all be inevitably lost. I made up my mind. I turned to Morgan with a smile on my face, and I said: ‘Old boy, you’re quite right; this is a fine pace; but it ain’t quite fast enough. Look here!’ and I caught him by the arm and led him to the side of the engine next to the double rail. ‘See!’ I cried; ‘there is another train coming up faster than us, and she will pass us; we must go faster: but let’s see first who is driving her; lean forward and look. Can you see?’

The poor maniac stepped outside the rail and leaned forward to look for the imaginary train, when I gave him a sudden push, and he fell in a heap on the side-rails and was killed on the spot. With a gasp of relief I sprang back to the engine and turned off the steam. It was not a moment too soon. We were well in sight of Blinton Junction before I had the train properly under control. I pulled up at the platform all right, and then I fainted.

When I came to, I was lying on a bench in the waiting-room, and the inspector was standing over me, with his note-book in his hand, prepared to take down my statement. What I stated was, that the engine-driver had gone mad, and that, to save the lives of the passengers, I had knocked him off the engine just in time to get the train under control before running into the station. This was corroborated by the guard and several passengers; and the case was brought before the solicitors of the Company. I gave my evidence at the inquest, and heard no more of the matter until one day the passenger superintendent handed me ten sovereigns and a letter appointing me station-master at Little Mudford. It was evident the directors condoned my conduct; and I hope that my readers will agree with them, and, in consideration of my having saved a train full of people, will acquit me of murder, and bring in a verdict of justifiable homicide.

POPULAR LEGAL FALLACIES.[1]

BY AN EXPERIENCED PRACTITIONER.

_DEEDS OF GIFT AND WILLS.—II._

The making of a will is a much less formidable affair than the preparation of a deed of gift. It requires no stamp; the rights of the beneficiaries do not arise until the decease of the testator, and therefore it does not in any way interfere with his power to manage and dispose of his property as he thinks best in the interval during which he retains physical and mental power to make a new will. In a case of extreme simplicity, the testator may even dispense with professional assistance altogether; but this is seldom advisable. As, however, some testators _will_ make their own wills, it may be useful, while adverting to the danger of that practice, to point out how the risk may be lessened. It is always dangerous to use technical expressions—such as ‘heirs,’ &c.—because a gift to the heirs of a testator has the effect of cutting out the younger children in the same way and to the same extent as if he had died intestate. In some cases, it may even be worse than intestacy, depriving them of their shares of their father’s personal estate. The intentions of the testator ought to have the simplest form of expression possible applied to their setting forth in the will. The names of the children who are to benefit ought in most cases to be inserted, this having certain legal advantages in case of death over the description of the children as a class. When property is given to a child of the testator who dies before his father, the gift takes effect as if he had survived his father and then died; while in all other cases, if the beneficiary should die in the lifetime of the testator, the devise or bequest in his favour lapses, or becomes altogether void. Of course this might in any case be provided against by express directions that in case of the death of the beneficiary, the benefit intended for him should go to his children; but such provisions are to some extent inconsistent with that simplicity which is essential in home-made wills.

Other points requiring special attention in some cases are that the subsequent marriage of the parents does not (in England) render bastards legitimate, or capable of taking under the description of ‘children’ of the testator; and that the marriage of a man with the sister of his deceased wife, or of a woman with the brother of her deceased husband, is absolutely void, and the children of such void marriage are illegitimate. In such cases, the difficulty may be overcome by the use of appropriate words and full and clear descriptions of the persons who are to be included in the will. In many home-made wills, the distinction between the effect of the two disposing words ‘devise’ and ‘bequeath’ appears to have been unknown. Now, there is a real distinction here, the former word applying to real estate (land), and the latter to personal estate (money, furniture, &c.); and in cases within our own knowledge, the use of a word which was not appropriate to one class of property, without any sufficient description of what was intended to pass by the will, has occasioned a partial intestacy, and to that extent has defeated the intentions of the testator. The word ‘give’ is always sufficient, and has the advantage of being safe. A common mistake is the omission of the appointment of executors; and an equal impropriety is the appointment of a tenant for life as sole executor. When everything which the testator possesses is given absolutely to one person, that person may well be appointed sole executor, in order that the power and the beneficial interest may be combined in one and the same person; but if an executor has only a life-interest in the income to arise from the property, some other should be appointed to act with him as joint executors.

The Wills Act, 1837, requires that certain formalities should be observed as to the attestation of wills and codicils. The latter instruments, however, scarcely come within the scope of this, as it is very rare to find a conjunction of circumstances in which it would be advisable for a testator to attempt to alter the effect of the will itself by adding a codicil thereto. Although the Act does not require the adoption of any special form of attestation, still it is very desirable that a well-designed form should be used, because it draws the attention of the parties to the statutory requisites, which cannot be neglected without danger of the will becoming mere waste paper. Such a form is the following, the insertion of which may be allowed to supersede the necessity for a long explanation: ‘Signed by the said A. B. C. as his last Will and Testament in the presence of us, present at the same time, who, at his request, in his presence, and in the presence of each other, have hereunto subscribed our names as witnesses.’ Each witness should sign under this clause, and add his address and occupation. Formerly, if any witness had any interest in the will, the effect was to render the will void; but the inconvenience of this led to an alteration of the law, whereby in case of a beneficiary—or the wife or husband of a beneficiary—being one of the attesting witnesses, the will remains valid, except that the witness cannot take any benefit thereunder; nor can the husband or wife of such witness.

Much misapprehension exists as to the effect of the marriage of a testator on a will previously executed by him. It is generally known that a will may be revoked by the making of a subsequent will; whether the revocation be express—which it ought always to be—or merely by necessary implication, the new will being inconsistent with the old one, and not merely a codicil which is intended to be supplementary thereto. But it is very difficult to persuade some people that _when a man gets married, he ought to make a new will_, the marriage operating as a revocation of the former will. There is no need to insist to any great extent upon the fairness of this rule of law, for it scarcely requires a moment’s consideration to see that a will which would be quite proper for a bachelor, would be altogether unsuitable for the altered status of the same man when, by his marriage, he had taken upon him new duties and responsibilities. Few men would be so cruel as to wish their wills to remain unaltered when their position had so materially changed. Sometimes mischief is done by over-anxiety to provide for an intended wife; a man makes a will before his marriage, in order that his intended wife may be provided for in the event of his decease before marriage; and in ignorance of the rule of law as to revocation, he neglects to have his will re-copied, and then to re-sign it, and have the new will duly attested after the nuptial ceremony has been performed; in consequence of which neglect or omission, he ultimately dies intestate; and his wife only becomes entitled to the provision made for her by the law, although her husband intended her to have a much larger share of his estate. It is only requisite for this peculiarity to be known in order that the remedy, which is so easy, may be applied.

As to the revocation of a will by destruction, the legal distinctions often give rise to questions as difficult of solution as any which affect the original validity of wills. A testator who is of sound and disposing mind may cancel or revoke a will which he has previously made, without making another will to supersede it; and the usual mode of effecting this object is by the destruction of the will with the intention of revoking it. Here, however, all the necessary conditions must exist, or the will would not be revoked; and even if it were destroyed so utterly that its contents were undecipherable, and so destroyed by the testator himself, yet, if he did not intend to revoke the will, or was mentally incapable of disposing of his property, if the contents of the will could be proved in some other way, as from a draft or copy, probate would be granted of such draft or copy, although the expense of proving the will in that indirect manner would be considerably more than an ordinary grant of probate would cost. A very curious case was before the court some time since. A married man who had made his will in favour of his wife, in a moment of passion arising from his displeasure at something which she had done—nothing of any importance—tore up his will and threw the pieces at her before leaving the room where the quarrel had occurred. She was a wise woman, for she gathered the fragments together and said no more on the subject until after her husband’s decease, when probate was granted of the pieces, the court being of opinion that the deceased had not seriously intended to revoke his will, but had simply torn it when irritated to the verge of madness; and in this view the fact of his not having made a subsequent will was an important consideration.

The following brief observations as to the capacity of testators must bring us to the end of our present subject. A married woman who possesses any separate estate may dispose of it by will or otherwise as if she were single. An infant cannot make a valid will, nor can a person of unsound mind. But there are many cases in which a person may be capable of transacting all ordinary business, and yet be so much under the influence of some other person that his will may be set aside in consequence of the undue influence which has been brought to bear upon him. It is impracticable for us to enter at any length upon this part of the subject, as we have already trespassed by exceeding the space allotted to us. The simple rule is, that the will must be—as its name implies—an expression of the unbiased will and mind of the testator. Whenever the validity of the will of any deceased person is disputed on any ground, the due execution and attestation thereof have to be proved in court; but in ordinary cases the witnesses are not called upon when the will is proved, unless there is some irregularity or incompleteness in the attestation clause, or some erasure or interlineation in the will.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It should be understood that this series of articles deals mainly with English as apart from Scotch law.

OCCASIONAL NOTES.

‘ATLANTIC GREYHOUNDS.’