Harper and Brothers continue their issue of Shakespeare in handy volumes for the use of schools and families. 'The last addition to the series is Hamlet, edited, as are the plays' previously published, by Mr. Rolfe, of Cambridge, Mass. In the introduetion, copious extracts from English writers who have made Shakespeare a special study, lay open to the reader many of the problems which this masterpiece presents. But he is encouraged, instead of pinning his faith to the conclusions of any body of critics, to discover and interpret for himself. This implies.an amount of faith in the capacity of ordinary students, which we trast is not misplaced. The notes give all possible aid by explanation of obscure allusions, obsolete words, phrases and constructions, by collation of various readings, and citation of parallel passages from other plays or from contemporary literature, and, in some few instances, by wider comment on the poet's drift and intention.
In The Cerumic drt, by Miss Young, we have a work superbly printed, illustrated and bound, devoted to the task' of giving a continuous history of the rise and development of pottery manufacture. Assistance "has been sought in every quarter, and public and private collections have been ransacked for illustrations. Like the origin of analy other arts, that of pottery lies farther back in time than the beginnings of history. We come upon no nation at s0 early a period of its existence that it had not earthen vessels of some kind or other. And following down its pottery, shire this is possible we azo reality following down the history of national development. Taking up each country in turn, Miss Young traces the pro gress Of its pottery manufacture from the fust, enumerates the external circumstances which came in to modify its natural course, and is thus brought to describe the various streams of influence which concurred to form the recognised style of individual nations. Much attention is paid to the i—[am a partner in the firm of A-mow When defendant bought th Ji in February. At the time he bought also said he would pay $30 or $40 until ti off. In nent a but could not get He has not made any dant, sworn, deposed—I action. I made him T ce could give him $50 in February, and told him I could not alford to do ao, He has mae ko in a mouth—what I was to hat paid come out of my February salary. I was to have paid him what I could. Iwas out of employment a long engagement in articular in telling February. hat Ling ow an below. 1 for board ths without me to pay the balance ides which have been consumed. That would leave a balance of only about $50 for me to pay, and 1 atm willing to pay $20 in April and the balance in May 5 of I will pay him $10 down, half the remainder in April, and the balance in May, Plaintiff agreed to this proposal, and a list was real out in Court of what things def aut was to pay for, the amount being $4 His Lonusnie, who expressed sure the ease being allowed to come into Court, the order would be an order by consent defendant should pay $10 before twelve next day; $20 on oF before the 3rd April, and the balance on or before the 3rd May, together with the Court fees, $8 (which would be included in the last payment), and to return the furniture. in crest-examination by the dex fendant, said that he could swear upon his oath that he had ven the goat or ki ey were taken from his wt, in reply to his Loxpsurr, admitted receiving the goat and kid as a present from Mr. Scott, to whom he believed they belonged.
FU-LING, the plaintiff's boy, deposed ing Scott take the goat and kid from master's premises four days after hi master went to Japan, He spoke to Scott on the subject, and asked him wi to take the kid away in assam thea to the defend ai Plaintiff explained that it was on or about the 26th October that he first applied for the and kid to be returned, and ho had beau ig for Scott to return so that he could explain matter, defendant was then sworn and deposed that letter was not courteous; i peremptory onder for him to deliver the pat once. He considered they were a pr from Mr. Scott, and thought he was right in keeping them. He, therefore, told th plaintiff that he would not give them up unt hho proved they belonged to him. Plainti then came over to him, and after they had. talked the matter over, he (plaintiff) gave him the goat and kid as his own property, sayin; that he did not want them, he only waste: to prove that the goat and kid and " lot of other things had been taken away from his house by Scott, He (defendant) replied th Scott was not present, and could not bel what was eaid behind his back, He had also defendant's own handwriting giving him the ich he would produce, (Letter pro duced.) Previous to that letter being written, plai if had given him both the goat and kid, the letter was conclusive proof that he bad given him the kid, He had a witness who could confirm his statement, and would call hin, Gunn Hespersoy was then called and sworn,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.