Evening star., 1923-09-16
By Archibald Marshall

herself returned ae a quarter 90 six,
She had written letters for him. Sir
Everard had asked her 20 stay with
him a little longer, and the nurse
had taken the letters to the post.
when she returned It was to ind
her patient worse. He had died on
the following morning without haw-
ing regained consciousness
An ugly implication peeped out
here and there during the long ex-
| animation of this witness. and the
doctor, and the servants; but Il was
never pressed. All that It was sought
| to elicit was that IL a letter had come
for Sir Everard from Australia by
that post. Lady Provost alone could
have seen L.; if a letter had been
written to Australia, che alone
| could have known Of Il.
More important still, che win.
under which she had inherited, had
been found in the old press In Sir
Dverard's bedroom, after a search
| OF some days. She had professed en-
tire ignorance OF II, but according TO
her husbands letter, something had
teen done in the course of tho after
noon. when she had been alone with
him. IN connection with this will, and
could only have been done with her
help.
What was II that had been done7
| II was plain from Sir Everard's let.
| ter that he had meant to carry out
the intention he had an 4ounced 90
his lawyers and destroy the later
will. He could only have done this
| with her help, which his letter had
said that she had given. The infer
ence was as plain that she had de.
stroyed the wrong win.
At the end Of the first days trial ie
looked az IL in q very short time Sir
Godfrey Provost would find himself
installed at Sproule and his step
! mother In prison, after the criminal
trial that was bound TO follow the
civil action.
= . + Il
iHN the second day Sir Geoferey
~ went into tho witness box.
There were mormurs OF sympathy in
the court. The outlines of his story
! had been told. He had gone wrong Ia
his youth. but he had atoned for the
wrong By twenty years OF hard and
honorable work. Now, at the end OF
| II. he was to be swindled out OF his
Inheritance. But, fortunately. his case
| was strong. and that was unlikely to
| happen. Interest was not heightened
| until the time came for his cross. 81 =
( animation.
Why had he been sent out Of Eng
land. i've and twenty years before?
Fer forging his fathers name to a
| cheQue.
Details were dragged out and made
the most of. But the main fact had
always been known; he had atoned
for hls fault; his father had fully
forgiven him.
Had he been Ia trouble for any dis.
honest deed since then?
The witness showed hesitation.
Counsel waited for his reply. The
judge told him that he need not an
swer the question.
But he preferred 20 do so. Yes; he
had been convicted to q years I'm
prisOnment--not under his own name
ON charge OF swindiinG a hotel
keeper in Australia It was after that,
! that he had pulled himself together
| and started afresh, under another
| name stili, and hi8 record for the last
Itwenty-years had been blamelsse.
Had he told his father of this con-
virtion In the letter he was supposed
to have written TO him?
| No.
Forgery! Imprisonment for fraud:
A double change OF name! II the de-
fendant TO the action was guilty OF
| the crime laid to her charge, the
plaintiff was no shining monument of
\ virtue.
But what Of his life since? That. at
least had been upright and honor
able.
What was there to show for lt2
Witnesses had spoken as to certain
periods, during which il was not de-
nied that no had lived honestly. What
had he been doing during these years
and those years not accounted for?
He could not always remember. If
he did, his word was pnoorroborated.
1t had been impossible TO bring over
witnesses srom AustraIia to answer
for every year out of the twenty since
he had eome cut OF prison.
he left the witness-box consider
ably moro damaged In reputation than
| when he had ontored IL. But stiil,
right was right. he was only claim
ing his own. There was his fathers
letter to him. What was the answer
! to that?
The answer was that the letter was
an impudent forgery, by a known and
admitted forger.
The writing was said 60 be quite
unlike Sir Evorafd's.
| Yes. but he had written it almost on
the point of death.
The doctor who had attended him In
his last Illness said that 1t was most
improbable that at the time tho letter
was supposed to have been written,
he could have had tho strength TO
write It.
InAMNrNo testimony came from q
IL Rond street stationer. He had
supplied the crested paper on which
this letter was written, up to about
twenty years before. after which sta
tionery supplied to Sprouie Court had
Always been stamped with an address.
Letters written by Lady Provost on
that afternoon were put mall of
them on paper stamped with an ad-