the son. He is accused of forgery and fraud, and what is the explanation he gives? To Mr. Carpenter he denied that he forged his mother's signature, but he admitted that he had obtained the deed by means perhaps ungracious, and justified himself by the plea that his brothers and sisters in Detroit had had more than their share of his mother's property; that there was some property in St. Paul that one of the children had the advantage of, and that he had worked hard at Crawford's Quarry, and that he thought the property there ought to belong to him. He also stated to Mr. Carpenter that the deed was taken to him entirely, only at the event of her death he should have it (the property) in preference to the other children. Mr. Carpenter then said to him that his mother now asked the property back; that he was invited up there by his mother, and he (Leonard) said the mother could have the property back upon this condition, that upon her death she should give it to him in preference to the other children. To Mr. Dowling, another attorney employed by Mrs. Crawford to regain these lands, he said that his mother had claimed that she had never signed this deed, and he brought and exhibited to Dowling another conveyance to show the signature attached to it, and asked him to pass his opinion upon the two signatures as to whether they were alike or not. And he said: "This is the voluntary deed of my mother duly acknowledged and duly witnessed; there is no mistake about it whatever." Dowling further testifies as follows: "I told him that his mother had requested me to have a talk with him about the matter, and get him, if possible, to reconvey those lands to her, and he refused to reconvey them. He said his mother was getting old, and that she had disposed of most of her property, and she probably would dispose of those lands if he reconveyed them, and he did not think he had his share of her worldly wealth, and he intended to keep the lands and hold them under that deed, which was a voluntary deed on her part."

If the testimony of Emma Crawford, Emma C. Jouret and C. Stenton is to be believed, the proof of forgery would be clearly established. Each of these witnesses testify that

Leonard C. Crawford admitted in their presence that he had forged the deed in question, but at the same time they say that he asserted that he should rely on the deed and hold the property to the exclusion of the other children of Mrs. Crawford. It seems hardly credible that a person accused of forgery and threatened with a prosecution to recover the property should so freely admit away his title to it, and at the same time express his determination to hold the property under the deed. Yet these statements may each and all be true. It may be possible that he boldly asserted to his sisters Mrs. Jouret and Mrs. Stenton that he had forged the deed and meant to keep the property, relying upon their desire to avoid a public scandal and disgrace in the family, and also upon his mother's fondness for him, to prevent a prosecution. If so, it exhibits a daring hardihood and a reckless disregard of consequences seldom met with outside of the

criminal classes.

In reaching the conclusion that the deed in question is a forgery, I have laid aside the testimony of each of these witnesses as tinctured with an evident bias. The witnesses who were present at the transaction all agree that, at about the time this deed bears date, Mrs. Crawford signed her name to a certain instrument to which Mrs. Crawford and her son Leonard were parties; they all agree that Mrs. Williams was present on that occasion; they all agree that Mr. Alexander McDonald was a witness called to witness the signature of Mrs. Crawford to the paper then signed by her. The deed in question appears to be signed by Mrs. Crawford, and to be witnessed by Philip O'Farrell and A. McDonald, and the acknowledgment appears to have been taken before. Philip O'Farrell as a notary public. The witnesses disagree as to the kind of paper then signed, as to its appearance, as to who were present, and as to what transpired on that occasion. It is to be remarked, however, that all agree that but one deed was ever made or executed of any lands in Presque Isle county between Mrs. Crawford and her son Leonard that Mr. McDonald was a witness to.

Mrs. Williams testifies that there were present Mrs. Craw

ford, her son Leonard, Mr. McDonald and herself, and that O'Farrell was not present. Mr. McDonald testifies that Mrs. Crawford, Leonard, Mrs. Williams, O'Farrell and himself were present. Mr. O'Farrell testifies the same as McDonald. He also testifies that he was there at the request of Leonard, who told him to prepare the deed of all Mrs. Crawford's lands that had not been conveyed, and told him his mother. was going to deed these lands to him. He says he told Leonard that he did not think his mother would, because he had heard her speak to the contrary some time before; that he drew up the deed and took it to Mrs. Crawford's place to have it signed; that he spoke to her, and that she consented to sign it; and that he was greatly surprised. He says:

"In fact I told somebody that I would not be surprised if she had shot me more than I was when she consented to sign it. So I took her into a room of the house-at least, arranged to get her in there-and I explained it to her. Of course, I don't remember now what language was used; but I am very positive that my intention was to tell her that she was giving him what property she had in Presque Isle county. She went on to tell what he had promised to do with reference to giving her a certain amount of money-I don't remember the amount-and to make provision for the support of herself and his father, her husband. There was some talk about where the father should stay, whether it was to be in Detroit. or up there, and they came to some conclusion about it, but I don't remember what it was; and I don't know as I would remember as much as I do only for my surprise about her signing such an instrument at all. Well, then there was something said about what security she would have that he would carry out his agreement with her, and my recollection. is, although I would not be very positive about it, that I suggested drawing up a bond or a contract, or something to that effect, and for him to give her a mortgage on the property to secure her in his carrying out this agreement about this support and money, and so on; but what became of that, or whether it was done there and then, I have no definite recollection. Then I remember that we went into another room, and in fact walked from one room to another talking about the matter. Mrs. Williams was called from another room, or from up stairs, in the same house, to be as a witness, and when Mrs. Williams came down she was called upon to be

a witness. I don't remember who spoke to her about it, or I don't remember who called her from up stairs, or wherever she was, but I remember the objection she made, saying she was friendly with the other members or branches of the family, and that she thought that this document would be taking property in Presque Isle county away from themfrom the Detroit parties and that she was going down to Detroit in a very short time; and that it would be bad policy for her to have anything to do with it. She spoke a good deal about how she loved the family; and loved one as well as another; and went on in a woman-like way, and said she didn't want to have anything to do with it, so Mr. McDonald was called in. It was spoken about going to get somebody, and I think it was Len. that said he was in the store, and that he would get him; and yet my recollection is that he sent for him and brought him in. When he came in, Mrs. Crawford spoke something about the matter; it was generally spoken about there; and Mrs. Crawford said something to Mrs. Williams-I don't remember what it was-as to why she would not be a witness. But I know that the paper was signed there by Mrs. Crawford, and I signed as a witness, and I saw Mr. McDonald sign as a witness. Of course, I would not remember that that Exhibit A is the paper any more than that I do remember when I read the description and remember the time I had arranging to get it into such a condensed form, and it suggests to my mind that it is the paper, because I saw papers drawn up by Mr. Hunt of about the same purport, which were very voluminous; and I know I made it a point to get it in without any repetition in drawing the body of the paper; and my best recollection is that that is the one; and I do know that that is my signature as a witness on it. Well, the paper was signed, and there was something said, but by whom I don't remember, about how unwise it would be to put it on record, as Mr. Crawford had been in business there before, and there was some debts hanging over him, and likely it would induce his creditors. to commence proceedings against him. There was something said about how that could be avoided, but the details of that I cannot remember. But I know after the business was transacted I went away, and I have no distinct recollection of hearing anything about the whole affair until, well, some months or such a matter; I don't remember exactly."

On his cross-examination he testified that there was talk of a trust deed, and something was said about the respective

merits of a trust deed being given by the mother, and an absolute deed and mortgage back. No one can read the testimony of this witness without reaching the conclusion that, by the transaction as he details it, an unconscionable advantage was taken of the old lady, which, under the circumstances, amounted to a positive fraud upon her. By his story she was weak, trustful and confiding. The papers were executed under the understanding that she was to have security back by way of "mortgage for her support, and money, and so on," and yet no security was given. As soon as he had secured the deed nothing further was done; and he seems to have lost suddenly his solicitude for the old lady's welfare. But the story he tells is not true. He is directly contradicted by Mrs. Crawford and by Mrs. Williams, and inferentially by McDonald, who testifies that he was a friend of Leonard and was in partnership with him in 1878; that he had talked with Leonard about his trying to induce his mother to make a deed or give him some portion of her property; that he talked with both of them upon the subject, and it was agitated for two or three months to his knowledge; that the deed talked of was to be a trust deed, securing in the same instrument the payment to her of three hundred dollars in cash every year, and her support, and also the support of his father if he would remove to the "Quarry," and reside there; that the deed was not to be placed upon record; that she always insisted upon reserving from the deed section. twelve and the homestead; that he was afterwards called in to Mrs. Crawford's by Leonard to witness the signature of his mother to a deed, which he supposed to be the trust deed. talked about; that he did not read the paper and could not identify it, but did identify his signature as a witness; that he had the impression that the paper he witnessed was written upon legal cap paper; that Mrs. Williams was present and asked to witness the paper, but declined because she was about to leave for Detroit, and while in Detroit she wanted to visit among the Crawfords, and she didn't want to be a party to any transfer for fear it would make her enemies; that from what was said he knew that the paper he witnessed