The Bottineau courant. (Bottineau, Bottineau County, N.D.) 1895-1929, 1915-06-25
Counter

By SARAH BAXTER


was very rich, and when he died u will
was produced leaving all his property
to James and Lucy jointly. This was
no surprise, for 1t was we'll known that
the testator. who had no children. had
approved a plan Of union between bis
favorite nephew and niece and that
they should inherit his property. They
were lovers. were engaged and Dol to
I've married.
There was great surprise, therefore,
when a half brother Of the deceased
named Torrance pronounced the will a
forgery. This would give the property
I" the heirs at law, and Torrance would
receive a third, or about $4,000 o But
a still greater surprise was sprung
when Torrance accused James Ander-
son Of the forgery. Unfortunately. 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-
a and to get rid of her had gone to
parts unknown. 1t was supposed that
the origin of the accusation was In
Mrs. Torrance-B Baker, who had known
Mr. Anderson. the testator. and swore
that the signature to the will was not
his.
When James Anderson received a
visit from her attorney, Edward Mark.
ham. James asked whether. should un
accused person confess the crime Of
which he was accused. bis counsel
would still be bound to defend him
rhe lawyer replied that a defense un.
Ter the circumstances would be per.
fectly legitimate. Thus informed. James
confessed that he had forged his uncle's
WILL Markham was greatly surprised.
FOR young Anderson had a singularly
honest c~ountenance. Indeed. notwith
standing the confession. Markham did
not believe that his client was guilty.
Markham took great interest in the
Ease. for not only q fortune for Il pair
Ut young lovers, but young Anderson's
acquittal 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
ture with specimens Of James Ander
sons writing bore witness that he had
written it. One expert declared that
no man could have written it. for it
bore many characteristics of a femi
nine hand.
Lucy Anderson attended the court
regularly and was naturally under IL
terrible strain. When this testimony
was adduced several persons among
the spectators looked at her as much
MS to say. Perhaps, after all. she is
the criminal" This was too much for
her. She tainted and was carried out
of the courtroom.
The next development in the case
was that Lucy SEN for her lovers
counsel and confessed to him that it
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. II from James. the other
from Lucy Anderson. The former he
had never believed. and as the case
had proceeded he had conceived a sus-
picion that James was shielding some
me When Lucy had tainted on hear
ing that the forger must have been a
woman the lawyer made up his mind
that he had reached a solution of the
problem.
He consulted with his client. inform
ing him Of Lucy's confession. james
did not e to be surprised on hear
ing OF it.. but stolidly adhered to what
he had said. declaring that Lucy had
confessed to save him from disgrace
and Imprisonment. He begged her
counsel to conceal the latest confession
and. if he could not save him on a tech
nicality, to let the case 60 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 Il
crime~ Lucy was again carried out Of
the courtroom in a swoon. Shortly aft.
or the finding Of the verdict James was
sentenced to ten years Imprisonment
IN M state ~penitentiary.
Just before he was to be taken to
prison who should urn 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 grea,
Embarrassment in the situation. He
had witnessed a subsequent will to the
me mentioned. leaving all his estate
to his nephew with a provision tina,
he should marry bis cousin Lucy .,
new hunt was instituted and tn: viii
found. Torrance also testified thar -"
signature to the will James Andersen,
had been convicted Of forgin" WIS
genuine.
James Anderson's counsel applied