Page:The-new-brunswick-magazine-v3-n5-nov-1899.djvu/19

fishing and other business" to be by no means a flattering speculation, especially as it prevented attention to the fur trade, which he would have carried on alone without partners according to his first design. He adds that he signed the contract without due consideration and almost under compulsion.

Hazen and Jarvis affirm there was no necessity for Mr. Simonds to have signed the contract at the time he did. Had he required time for further deliberation he could have deferred action to another day. There was at least fifteen feet of water at low tide at the wharf where the Eunice lay, a depth sufficient for a much larger vessel. Afterwards, when the whole matter was referred to arbitration, they offered, if reimbursed the property they had advanced, with interest and such commissions as other merchants would have required, to let Mr. Simonds keep his lands, such reasonable compensation to be made Mr. Hazen for his personal services and expenditures at St. John as the arbitrators might determine.

The arbitrators—Wm. Pagan, Richard Seaman and Christopher Billopp—in their report of February 5, 1790, unanimously affirmed the validity of the second contract, including the clause relative to the division of lands. Their decision was reaffirmed by the decree of the Chancery Court of February 24, 1798. The decision of the master in chancery, Samuel Denny Street, rendered August 11, 1803, as to the balances due by the respective parties was not so satisfactory to Hazen & Jarvis, who seem to have expected a balance in their favor whereas it turned out that there was a balance in Mr. Simonds favor of £2,032.