many days in considerable danger, during which time his wife, obedient to the true in stincts of womanhood, nursed him tenderly and devotedly while he lay only half con scious most of the time. One morning (I can fix the exact date, it was Saturday, the 1 5th of February), he woke from his state of semi-consciousness, and taking his wife by the hand said, " Lizzie you have been a good wife to me, and I have done you a great wrong, but I will put it right before I die; send a message to your friend Albert to come and see me tomorrow, and find for me that will which Mr. Burke made for me on my birthday." Albert called on the Sunday, was told to make a fresh copy of the will to be signed on the following Tuesday and to bring with him some trusted friend on the evening of that day as a second witness. Albert carried out these instructions to the letter; he and a friend, Mrs. Harbottle's brother, came together to the house; the old man was propped up in his bed, and signed the "will No. 5," leaving everything to his wife, the same as in " will No. 3; " two days afterwards he passed away in sleep. These were the facts of the case precedent to the old man's death, as given to me in de tail by the widow when, shortly after the death, she instructed me to act for her. On the morning of the death the widow sent for a friendly undertaker, produced " will No. 5" to him, and gave him instructions for the funeral; two hours later Brooks called on the same undertaker, produced " will No. 4," and was about to give him instructions for the funeral also, but was told he was out of it, as there was a later will. So war was de clared, and litigation commenced. The widow applied for probate of "will No. 5;" Brooks applied for probate of "will No. 4," alleging that " No. 5"" was a forgery; or, in the alternative, that it was executed by the testator under undue influence, and when he was not competent to execute a will. And whilst I was preparing for trial I made in quiries for the small sen-ant girl, Annie Gurr,
and was told she had been dismissed by her mistress for impudence, and that her last words on leaving had been that " she would make it hot for the missus when the will case came on; " and further private inquiries elicited the fact that she had gone over to the enemy, and was coming forward to swear that she had been in the house the whole of the 18th of February, without once going out; and that neither Mr. Albert nor the second witness had been to the house on that day. This was a " stumper " indeed. I sent for the widow in hot haste, and pointed out to her that, if the girl's evidence was believed, the case would not stop there, but would evolve itself into a criminal prosecution of the widow and the attesting witnesses for conspiracy and forgery. She stuck to her guns manfully, and said she feared noth ing; and then I asked her how the girl could swear so positively to the date, and turning carelessly over the leaves of my diary I said, "Tuesday, 18th Feby., Shrove Tuesday," and I muttered the word " Pan cakes." Up jumped the widow, " Did you say Pancakes. Was it Pancake Day? Then we have got her sure enough." (J may here mention for the benefit of the uninitiated reader that there is a custom in England, as firmly established as is the custom in the States of eating turkey on Thanksgiving Day, of eating pancakes on Shrove Tuesday the day before the commencement of Lent.) And then the widow proceeded to tell me an interesting little story. I proceeded to prepare for the trial. I retained for my leading counsel an able and experienced Q. C. whom I shall call Mr. Gripper, who advised that the case was a funny one, and that I must be prepared for anything. The first two witnesses called were the attesting witnesses of the " will No. 5," who gave their evidence well and were not shaken by cross-examination. Then Mr. Gripper called the widow, and here my anx iety commenced in earnest. Those of my readers who have had experience will agree
