mercantile spirit, did not see why Mrs. Nicks should have an advantage not possessed by themselves. Now was the opportunity to 'break' her and her husband, and they did not intend to lose it. They accused her of having broken open the Company's go-downs at Connimeer and of having taken forcibly a quantity of calico. In all probability it was hers, and was paid for with her own money ; but, holding no licence, she had no right to be in possession of such goods. She fell back on her old friend and declared that the property was Yale's,
Yale's reign was over, and he was no longer able to help her, being overshadowed by a cloud of trouble himself. She was asked for proof of her assertion, but of course could give none. Other accusations of fraud were brought against her, the chief witnesses being, as in Streynsham Master's case, the native merchants or brokers who brought in the calico, evidence that was utterly unreliable,
Mrs. Nicks was sued personally for the value of the calico she had taken, 'she being a woman notoriously known to be a separate merchant from her husband,' said the indictment ; and she was asked to give bail for her appearance to answer for her illegal proceedings. She refused ; so a warrant was issued for her arrest. There seemed to be a difficulty in putting the warrant into execution, as the lady also refused to be arrested. Accordingly, a guard of musketeers was placed over her house in the fort, to which she had returned, and there was no small excitement in the little community within the fort and in the garden-houses by the river. In the end she paid what was demanded, and the guard was removed.
We have only the council's version of the story ; what Kitty Nicks had to say in defence of her conduct is not recorded. She did not possess the ready pen of a Hamilton to fling back mud at her enemies. Whether
