thereafter。
  In　1893　Mr。　Dimon　died。　No　will　being　produced；
  his　brother　took；　out　letters　of　administration。　Whereupon
  Mrs。　Martha　Keery　commenced　a　suit　against
  the　brother　and　the　next　of　kin　he　represented；　in
  an　effort　to　obtain　the　dead　man's　estate。　She　based
  her　claim　solely　on　the　LOST　will；　the　contents　of　which
  were　recalled　in　the　trial　by　Mr。　Dimon's　former
  counsel；　who　was　also　one　of　the　witnesses　to　the　lost
  will。　During　the　course　of　the　trial　in　the　Supreme
  Court；　presided　over　by　Justice　George　L。　Ingraham；
  Mrs。　Keery's　attorney　produced　a　mutilated　document
  which　from　its　reading　indicated　that　it　had　once
  been　a　will；　though　not　the　〃lost〃　one。　But　the
  names　of　the　legatee；　executrix；　testator；　names　of
  witnesses　and　their　addresses　were　completely　obliterated。
  The　written　portions　still　undisturbed　showed
  it　to　be　in　the　handwriting　of　Stephen　C。　Dimon。
  Mrs。　Keery's　story　was　that　after　the　death　of　Mr。
  Dimon　in　going　over　an　old　coat　formerly　worn　by
  him；　she　had　found　it　in　a　side　pocket　and　had　given
  it　to　her　counsel　just　as　it　came　into　her　hands。
  Its　condition　showed　it　to　be　considerably　pocket…
  worn。　The　obliterations　referred　to　represented　huge
  blots　of　black　ink　covering　a　lot　of　scratches　and
  making　it　impossible　to　decipher　the　under　writing。
  Defendant's　Counsel　immediately　requested　that　the
  document　be　turned　over　to　an　expert；　to　see　what
  could　be　done　with　it。　The　judge　granted　the　motion
  and　adjourned　the　case　for　several　days　to　await
  results。
  Counsel　on　both　sides　joined　in　the　selection　of
  myself。　Three　days　were　occupied　in　its　decipherment。
  The　will　occupied　two　sides　of　a　full　sheet　of
  legal　cap。　The　original　ink　which　was　employed　in
  the　writing　of　the　will　was　of　pale　gray　color。　The
  first　obliterations　were　a　series　of　pen　and　ink
  scratches　and　marks　which　destroyed　the　writing。
  Not　satisfied　with　them　the　operator　had　with　a　saturated
  piece　of　blotting　paper；　brushed　over　the
  scratches　and　as　that　ink　was　of　good　quality　every
  mark　of　writing　had　disappeared　in　the　jumble　and
  blots。　It　so　happened　that　three　inks　had　been　employed。
  The　original　ink；　the　ink　used　for　scratching
  and　the　one　employed　to　do　the　blotting。　The　three
  inks　were　happily　mixtures　containing　different　constituents；
  and　so　by　utilizing　the　reagent　of　one　which
  did　not　affect　the　other；　gradually　the　encrusted　upper
  inks　were　removed　and　later　the　original　writing　appeared
  sufficiently　plain　not　only　to　be　read　but　to
  identify　it。　Photographs　made　before　and　after　the
  chemical　experiments；　permitted　court　and　counsel　to
  make　their　own　comparisons　during　the　giving　of　the
  testimony　about　it。
  It　permitted　also　the　finding　of　the　two　witnesses　who
  lived　outside　of　the　city　and　to　learn　many　details
  from　them　as　to　Mr。　Dimon's　conduct　in　the　matter。
  The　restored　will　showed　that　Mrs。　Keery　at　its
  date　（1891）　was　still　in　his　mind；　and　its　destruction
  by　himselfthat　he　had　changed　his　mind。
  Justice　Ingraham　completes　his　opinion　in　deciding
  the　case　as　follows：
  〃In　this　case；　however；　the　long　time　that
  elapsed　between　the　time　of　the　delivery　of　the
  will　to　Mr。　Morgan　and　the　death　of　the　testator；
  the　absence　of　my　satisfactory　proof　of　the　existence
  of　the　will　from　the　time　it　was　delivered　to
  Mr。　Morgan　to　the　time　of　the　testator's　death；
  and　the　fact　that　the　testator　made　another　will；
  making　substantially　the　same　disposition　of　the
  property；　which　he　subsequently　destroyed；　all
  tend　to　cast　a　doubt　upon　the　fact　that　the　will
  was　in　existence　at　the　time　of　the　testator's　death；
  and　there　is　positively　no　evidence　that　it　was　ever
  fraudulently　destroyed。
  〃I　do　not　think　the　court　is　justified　in　diverting
  a　large　sum　of　money　from　those　legally　entitled
  to　it；　by　allowing；　a　lost　will　to　be　proved；　except
  upon　the　clearest　and　most　satisfactory　evidence
  of　the　existence　of　the　will　at　the　time　of　the　testator's
  death。　And　the　testimony　in　this　case　falls
  short　of　what　I　consider　necessary　to　establish
  such　a　will。
  〃There　should　be；　therefore；　judgment　for　the　defendants
  with　costs。〃
  *　　　*　　　　*　　　　*　　　　*　　　　*　　　　*
  A　case　of　considerable　interest　was　tried　before
  Hon。　Clifford　D。　Gregory　in　the　month　of　March；　1899；
  in　the　city　of　Albany；　New　York。　It　was　entitled
  the　〃People　of　the　State　of　New　York　against　Margaret
  E。　Cody；〃　as　charged　with　the　crime　of　blackmail；
  in　the　sending　of　a　letter　to　Mr。　George　J。
  Gould；　in　which　she　threatened　to　divulge　certain
  information　which　she　claimed　to　possess　about　his
  dead　father；　Jay　Gould。　The　character　of　this
  information　was　such　that　if　true　it　meant　that　Jay
  Gould　and　his　wife　had　lived　in　bigamous　relations
  during　a　great　number　of　years　preceding　their　death
  and　hence　also　affected　the　legitimacy　of　the　entire
  Gould　family。　Mrs。　Cody　asserted　that　Jay　Gould
  was　married　to　a　Mrs。　Angel　some　time　in　1853；　and
  that　as　a　result　of　that　〃lawful〃　marriage　she　gave
  birth　to　a　daughter；　a　Mrs。　Pierce；　who　was　still　alive
  and　living　somewhere　in　the　west。　As　Mrs。　Cody
  offered　to　sell　or　secrete　the　information　which　she
  said　she　possessed　for　a　consideration；　Mr。　George　J。
  Gould　and　his　sister；　Miss　Helen　Gould；　instantly
  determined　that　it　could　be　nothing　else　than　a　clear
  case　of　an　attempt　at　blackmail；　which　falsely　impugned
  the　reputations　of　their　dead　parents。　They
  instituted　criminal　proceedings　against　Mrs。　Cody；
  charging　that　Mrs。　Cody　when　she　wrote　the　letter
  well　knew　that　her　claim　that　his　father　had　been
  married　to　Mrs。　Angel　and　that　Mrs。　Pierce　was　their
  daughter；　was　absolutely　false。　Two　trials　followed；
  the　first　in　1898　in　which　the　jury　disagreed；　and　a
  second　one　in　1899　which　lasted　over　a　week。　It
  was　in　the　second　trial　that　chemical　tests　on　a　certain
  entry　in　a　church　record　in　the　presence　of　the
  jury　were　made；　which　showed　conclusively　that
  ancient　writing　of　another　character　than　that　which
  had　been　substituted　was　still　existent　beneath　the
  writing　which　was　apparent　to　the　naked　eye。
  The　following　are　excerpts　of　the　judge's　charge
  to　the　jury：
  〃I　wish　to　invite　your　attention；　for　a　few　moments；
  to　the　baptismal　certificate。　You　have　had
  produced　here　before　you　the　original　baptismal
  record　of　the　church　at　Cooperville。　It　has　been
  substantially　admitted；　in　the　arguments　of　this
  case；　that　there　has　been　a　change　made　in　this
  certificate。　I　do　not　think　that　the　District　Attorney
  claims　that　there　is　any　evidence　that　Mrs。
  Cody　herself　changed　this　record；　there　is　no
  claim；　as　I　understand　it；　made　by　the　prosecuting
  officer　that　she　went　there　and　obtained　this　book；
  and　with　her　own　hand　changed　this　record；　but
  he　asks　you　to　infer　and　find　from　the　evidence
  that　has　been　given；　that　she　was　a　party　to　this
  change；　that　she　was　privy　to　this　change；　and　that
  knowing　that　fact　she　had　guilty　knowledge　when
  she　wrote　the　letter　upon　which　the　indictment　is
  based。
  〃You　will　remember　that　Mr。　Carvalho；　the
  expert　in　handwriting；　was　placed　upon　the　stand；
  and　he　has　testified　in　your　presence　as　to　his
  qualifications　in　determining　disputed　handwritings；
  and　what　his　experience　has　been　during　a　long
  series　of　years。　He　tells　you　that　he　has　examined
  this　record；　and　that　there　is　no　question　but　some
  of　the　words　have　been　erased　and　others　substituted
  in　their　places。　He　tells　you　that　the　words
  'Jay　Goulds'　were　not　the　original　words　in　the
  certificate；　or　if　they　were；　the　present　'Jay
  Goulds；'　as　they　appear　in　the　certificate；　have
  been　forged；　that　the　words　'Mary　S。　Brown；'
  the　'sex　mois；'　the　French　words　for　six　months；
  and　other　changes　which　he　has　described　to　you
  are　forgeries。
  〃I　shall　submit　to　you；　as　a　question　of　fact；
  whether　or　not　Mrs。　Cody　had　any　knowledge　or
  took　any　part；　or　authorized　or　connived　at　any　of
  the　changes　made　in　this　certificate。　I　do　not
  say　that　she　did；　I　leave　it　to　you　to　say；　from
  the　evidence　in　this　case；　whether　your　minds　are
  convinced　that　she　had　any　part　or　parcel；　or
  undertook　in　any　way　to　accomplish　the　changes
  which　have　been　made　in　this　baptismal　record。
  And　if　you　find　as　matter　of　fact　that　she　had
  such　knowledge　at　the　time　this　letter　was　written；
  if　you　find　as　matter　of　fact　she　had　this　information
  given　to　her　by　Mrs。　Angel；　then　I　leave　it
  to　you　to　say　whether　she　had　such　knowledge；
  such　guilty　knowledge；　as　should　prevent　her；　if　acting
  honestly；　from　writing　a　letter　such　as　has　been
  described　here　and　contained　in　the　indictment。〃
  The　jury　brought　in　a　verdict　of　guilty。
  In　the　trial　of　the　People　v。　David　L。　Kellam　（1895）；
  who　was　charged　with　altering　the　dates　of　three
  notes　for　6；000　each；　the　contention　of　the　prosecution
  was　that　the　dates　of　the　notes　had　been　c