100 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 



came in all hollow, without the faintest opposition. My object from the beginning 

 was to get the Speaker's chair, or I would never have become a candidate. A major- 

 ity of the members are quite under the influence of the St. John politicians, so that 

 I find I can be of no service to the public and most cordially wish I was clear of them, 

 and, like Bliss, enjoying my own fireside." 



When the third House of Assembly was elected Hardy was again 

 pressed to be a candidate, but was obliged to decline on account of 

 his health. 



Throughout his life he was an extremely busy man. In addition 

 to his civic and parliamentary duties and the calls of his profession 

 he had the social and benevolent claims of the Masonic Order, of 

 which he was one of the founders in Saint John. 



As an all round lawyer tradition says Elias Hardy had no peer. 

 Among the important cases in which he was concerned was that of 

 Benedict Arnold versus Munson Hoyt. Arnold was for a time a 

 resident of St. John. The suit was brought by the General against 

 his former business partner for slander. Hoyt accused Arnold of 

 setting fire to their store in Lower Cove, on which he had recently 

 effected insurance to the amount of £5,000. The store with its con- 

 tents was entirely consumed. The case came to trial before Judge 

 Isaac Allen at the September Court in 1790. Arnold claimed damages 

 to the amount of £5,000, but the jury only awarded him twenty shil- 

 lings, which was regarded practically as a verdict for the defendant. 

 Attorney-General Bliss and Ward Chipman appeared for Arnold, 

 and Elias Hardy for Hoyt. The St. John public apparently had not 

 a high opinion of Arnold's integrity and their sympathy was with the 

 defendant. 



Another celebrated case in which Hardy was retained, and which 

 proved a lucrative one. for the lawyers, was that of William Hazen 

 versus James Simonds. The case was the outcome of business trans- 

 actions between the parties extending over a period of twenty years. 

 The case was of so intricate a character that it was before the Courts, 

 in one form or another, for twenty-five years. Chipman was retained 

 to look after the interests of his father-in-law Hazen, and Simonds 

 was represented by Ellias Hardy. 



The proceedings of this suit in Chancery are preserved in the 

 record office in Fredericton. The student will find much information 

 in the venerable parchments concerning the mode of procedure in 

 vogue in early days and will gain some idea of the industry and ability 

 of Hardy and Chipman, who were giants in their profession in their 

 generation. 



