murder having been
committed, or, in fact, of any one having been killed by him. And
after he had him in custody he communicated with the authorities for
the necessary evidence."[4]

On November 24 Anderson was brought before the Court of Queen's Bench
consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices Burns and McLean. S.
B. Freeman appeared for the prisoner and Henry Eccles and R. A.
Harrison for the attorney-general. Freeman read the warrant of
committal by William Matthews and the two other Brantford magistrates
who had been associated with him. The evidence was to the effect that
on September 28, 1859 (sic), Anderson was on the estate of Seneca T.
P. Diggs in Howard County, Missouri, and that Diggs, while attempting
with Negro help to arrest Anderson, was stabbed twice and later died.
The question was whether Canada was to administer the slave laws of
Missouri. The counsel for the Crown admitted that Anderson's act, if
committed in Canada, would not be murder.

The Anderson case was practically the last important case to come
before Chief Justice Sir John Beverly Robinson, and around perhaps no
decision of his whole legal career did more excitement center. While
the justices were considering the evidence public meetings were being
held, not only in Toronto but in other Canadian cities. Newspapers
were furiously defending the fugitive and the judgment of the court
was being awaited with tense interest.

It was understood on November 30 that the Chief Justice was ready to
give decision but that he deferred for his associates. On that date
there were special police on duty about the court in fear of an
attempt at rescue by the Negroes and others. _The Globe_ of that date
contended that the question of surrendering the man, being a matter of
a treaty, should have been dealt with by the executive and not by the
courts at all.

"The universal heart and conscience of the people of Canada and of the
British nation will say upon the facts of the case that Anderson is
not a murderer in the sight of God, or under British law," was a part
of its comment editorially upon the case. A day or two later the paper
pointed out the significance of this particular case. If Anderson were
given up, it maintained, "no fugitive slave in Canada is safe on our
soil ... there is not a fugitive in Canada whose extradition may not
be demanded upon evidence sufficient to put the accused upon his
trial."[5]

The court finally gave its judgm