The Bottineau courant. (Bottineau, Bottineau County, N.D.) 1895-1929, 1915-07-02
Counter

9, sARAHaAxTw

James and Locy Anderson were
cousins. Their uncle. Peter Anderson.
was very rich. and when he died 4 Will
was produced leaving all bis property
" James and Lucy Jointly. THIS was
no surprise. for It was we'll known that
the ~testator. who had no children. had
approved q plan Of union between hts
n vorite nephew and niece and that
they should inherit bis property. They
wers lovers. ri engaged and sooa to
he married.
There was great surprise. therefore.
when . half brother Of the deceased
tanned Torrance pronounced the will q
forgery. THIS would give the property
to the heirs ut law. and Torrance would
receive Z third. Of about 100000. But
u still greater surprise was sprung
when Torrance accused James Ander.
son Of tho forgery. Unfortuna tety. both
witnesses to this will were dead.
Torrance had divorced his wife. who
had married another man named
Baker. Baker had trouble with the wo-
man and to get rid of her had gone to
parts unknown. 1t was supposed that
the origin Of the accusation a 10
Mrs. Torrance Baker, who had known
Mr.. Anderson, the testator, and swOre
that the signature to the will was not
his.
When James Anderson received q
visit from her attorney, Edward Mark.
ham, James asked whether. should an
accused. person confess the crime OF
which be was accused. bis counsel
would still be bound to defend him
The lawyer replied that q defense I'm.
der the circumstances would be per.
fectly legitimate. Thus Informed. James
''onfessed that he had forged his uncle's
will. Markham was greatly surprised.
for young Anderson had q stngularly
honest ~countenance. Indeed. notwith
standing the confession. Markham did
not believe that bis client was guilty.
MARKHAM took great interest In the
case. for not only a fortune for a patr
Of young lovers. but young Anderson'a
acquittaI Of a heinous crime. were at
stake. There was the usual examina.
ton of experts in chirography and the
usual differences Of opinion on the part
Of these gentlemen. Half Of them pro.
nounced the signature to the will to be
genuine, while the other half declared
that It was a palpable forgery. Most
Of the latter on comparing the sigma.
fIlr0 Nth 0n00frnA~~ 10 ~1~.
sons writing bore witness that he had
written it. One expert declared that
no MA could have written it. for it
bore many characteristics of a femi.
nine hand.
T. Lucy Anderson attended the court
regularly and was naturally under a
terrible strain. When this testimony
was adduced several persons among
the spectators looked at her as much
rs to say. perhaps. after all. she ia
the criminal" This was too much for
her. She tainted and was carried out
Of the courtroom.
The ext development In the case
was that Lncy 70 for her lovers
counsel and confessed to him that 1t
was she and not James who had forged
the will. This set a new complexion on
the case for the attorney. He had two
confessions. one from james. the other
from Lucy Anderson. The former he
had never believed. and as the case
bad proceeded he had conceived a sus.
picion that James was shielding some
one. When Lucy had tainted on hear
Ing that the forger must have been q
woman the lawyer made up bis mind
that he had reached a solution Of the
problem.
He consulted with bis client. inform.
ing him OF Lucy's confession. James
did o seem to be surprised on hear.
Ing Of it. but stolidly adhered to what
be had said. declaring that Lucy bad
confessed to save him from disgrace
and imprisonment He begged her
counsel to conceal the latest confession
and. II he could not save him on a tech.
nicaltty. to let the case go against him.
The prisoner was convicted, largely
on the evidence Of Mrs. Torrance Baker.
who at the time the will was made OF
supposed to have been made was on
very friendly terms with the testatOr
James received his conviction stoically.
as though conscious Of doing a noble
action instead Of having committed a
crime. Lucy was again carried out of
the courtroom In a swoon. Shortly aft
er the finding Of the verdict James was
sentenced to ten years. imprisonment
70 the state peniteniary.
Just before he was to be taken to
prison who should turn up but Francis
Baker. the second husband Of Mrs.
Torrance Baker. who had been active
in securing young Anderson's convic.
ton. He had been In the interior Of
South America.
Bakers return produced a erea,
! Embarrassment In the situation. He
had witnessed a subsequent will to the
n mentioned. leaving all bis estate
to his nephew with a provision thn,
he should marry hia cousin Lucy \
new hunt was instituted and thu. will
found. Torrance also testified that III.