"Pop," he said, "sorry to trouble you, but I s'pose we've got to have a little accounting now and then. You might look this over if you please."

Sargent looked it over. It was a balance sheet made up from the books. It showed a balance of over $35,000 due from Steven P. Sargent to Oliver Twining. Sargent started.

"Can't be possible," he exclaimed. "Take your time," said Twining, "go over the books, see that it's right."

Sargent looked over the books and saw it was right. He sent for Twining. "You, you oughtn't to have let me overdraw to that extent," he said, "I had no idea..

"'S all right," soothingly said Twining. "Take your time. And around the first of the year you can hand me a

check."

"But I can't hand you a check, I haven't got the money," faltered Sargent. "Sell some securities."

"I,-I haven't any," said Sargent. "Mortgage your place."

"It's mortgaged to the handle now," groaned Sargent. Twining knew it. In fact it was the record of the mortgage that had apprised him of the comparative poverty of his father-in-law.

"Phew," whistled Twining, "where do I come in, then? Here I've scraped and saved for years, trying to make both ends meet, and you've lived on my share in the firm. What am I to do?""

From that moment Steven P. Sargent became the subject of invective, vituperation, anathema on the part of Twining.

And then, suddenly, Twining brought suit for an accounting of the profits of the firm. On the day that he brought suit his conduct at his own home became so unbearable that his wife was forced to leave. She left.

But-and this circumstance is worth noting. She had inherited some of her father's business acumen. She had watched. She had put two and two together. And when she left, she took with her, under her fur coat, a certain memorandum book which Twining had kept under lock and key in his desk at home.

The instant that her father opened it, he understood its value.

It was the secret record of Twining's nefarious profits made in his dealings with Parsonnet and others of his kind.

Sargent called up a number on the telephone. "Longstreet," he said to his counsel, "will you come up here at once?" Longstreet came in the dead of night, and when he went he carried with himfor safe-keeping-this secret and portentous journal.

In due course the accounting action was reached on final hearing and tried before a vice chancellor at chambers. There were present at the trial six persons, only six. One was the vice chancellor. Two were counsel. The remaining three were Sargent, his daughter, and his son-in-law. The case didn't even get into the papers. It was a dry-as-dust partnership accounting-who cared about it?

But the six people in the courtroom cared a good deal.

"Well," said the vice chancellor, "simple enough. The complainant Twining files his bill for an accounting, and the defendant Sargent files his cross bill for the same purpose."

"And," said Twining's counsel, "I understand Mr. Sargent is willing to admit the amount of his overdraft. He owes us so much and so much, total so very much."

"Do you admit that?" queried the vice chancellor of Longstreet.

Longstreet, smiling, drew forth the fatal book. Twining flushed-but only momentarily when it was produced.

"Do you want me to prove this?" queried Longstreet.

Twining whispered to his counsel; if his wife took the stand he foresaw sensation and notoriety.

"Oh," returned complainant's counsel, "we'll admit that Mrs. Twining stole this from Mr. Twining's desk."

The vice chancellor raised his eyebrows. "Stole?" he queried.

"I'll offer it," said Longstreet. Again Twining consulted with his counsel. They were silent.

"I'll receive it," said the court. "What does it show?"

Longstreet called Twining; he knew that Twining would not dare to perjure himself. The story soon came out. The

The vice chancellor scowled at Twining over the pages of the book. “You did very well, young man; you have profited to the extent of over $80,000,-a pleasing record; you must be proud of it." Twining flushed. His counsel was

silent.

"Well," said the vice chancellor, "any more proof?" There was none.

"You gentlemen are wise in agreeing upon figures," said the vice chancellor; "you'll need no reference. I'll hear argument."

Longstreet rose impulsively, regardless as to whether the burden was upon him or no. "It's all a question of division and subtraction, as I see it," he said. "Here is Sargent. He owes over $30,000 on one side of the account. There is Twining, who has made these secret profits. He owes us two thirds of them. I figure out that Twining owes us around $20,000. I haven't calculated the exact amounts."

"Short horse, soon curried," said the court, "what do you say, Mr. Brady?"

Brady rose, the corners of his mouth twitching. "A good deal, if your Honor please. It is clear that Mr. Sargent, the defendant, has overdrawn his account to such an extent that he is indebted to Twining in over $30,000. This not only is a debt; it is a deeper obligation. In legal effect the money belongs to us; it is our money. It is our share in this enterprise; it is our property. In taking it out of the partnership coffers Sargent took our property. He therefore actually became a trustee, and he holds this $30,000 odd as trustee for Twining today. Holding it as such, he must account for it. And if he fail to account, he is a plain, every-day, ordinary thief."

Twining's wife uttered an exclamation of indignation.

Brady raised his voice. "I repeat it. However unwittingly this man Sargent possessed himself of these funds, and hell, they say, is paved with good intentions, yet he is, in effect of law, if he fail to turn this fund over to my client Twining, a thief. The best proof of it is that this court, in making its decree, will act in personam,-will direct him to pay

pay it will lock him up like any ordinary criminal."

"This harangue seems superfluous," suggested the vice chancellor mildly. "If I have stated aught but law, I stand here to be corrected," said Brady.

What he had said, he had said for the express purpose of contrasting the strange position occupied by each of these two men. For he knew what else he had to say.

"This court," he continued, "will direct Sargent to pay my client Twining a sum exceeding $30,000. This court will not direct my client Twining to pay one cent to Sargent."

"What?" cried Longstreet, in amaze

ment.

"Your Honor will refresh your recollection of the testimony drawn from Twining, and corroborated by his socalled secret book of account," went on Brady, "your Honor will realize that while Twining was a member of the firm of Steven P. Sargent, and while that firm was acting as the selling agent of Hughes & Halsted, and collected its commissions as such selling agent,—that at the same time Twining was engaged in a so-called nefarious scheme of obtaining from purchasers who dealt with Hughes & Halsted a so-called nefarious and secret profit. He was at the time employed, first, on behalf of Hughes & Halsted, and, as the representative of the firm of Sargent, to sell at the price dictated by the seller, and at the same time he was employed as the agent of the buyer, and as a result, and unknown to the seller, the buyer, and also unknown to Sargent, he was reaping what my friend Longstreet will call an iniquitous profit. I may go further and call it a criminal profit. It certainly is a fraudulent profit. This profit, or the fund resulting from it, is now in the hands of Mr. Twining, and Mr. Longstreet asks this court to divide it up among two partners. I reply that this court will not lend itself to any such scheme; that it will not stoop to divide, or make division of, ill-gotten gains."

Longstreet was upon his feet again. "This," he exclaimed, "is preposterous!" the usual remark of counsel who is not

prepared with a brief. "To adopt this view would be to place a premium on crime."

"Have you any authorities, Mr. Brady?" asked the court.

"Fifty," said Brady readily, "but the principle is axiomatic. The first case that I find is a case in this state,-a controlling case. It settles just this question once and for all. Todd v. Rafferty's Administrators, 30 N. J. Eq. p. 254." “Appealed?” queried the court, jotting it down.

“And affirmed on appeal by the court of errors," returned Brady, "in Rafferty's Administrators v. Todd, in 34 N. J. Eq. p. 552."

The vice chancellor nodded to the stenographer. "Get me those books," he commanded. After reading the opinions and after hearing Longstreet, the vice chancellor shook his head.

"The situation is unfortunate," he remarked, "but I am bound by the Rafferty decision; it is on all fours with the facts in this case. The result is paradoxical. Here is the complainant Twining, convicted in the highest degree of immorality, treachery, and fraud, and the law cannot here touch him, long as its arm may be. He must, so far as this court is concerned, keep what he has. On the other hand, here is a citizen of eminent respectability, to be charged with none of this moral turpitude, whose every act has been open and aboveboard; and yet this court must direct him to pay over to his despicable partner thousands and thousands of dollars. Mr. Brady, I am forced to give you a decree."

Twining got his decree, and sold out Sargent, lock, stock, and barrel. By virtue of the sale and by virtue of his partnership agreement, which provided for a survivorship in case of death or other contingency, he used the name of Steven P. Sargent, continues its use to this day. But to this day no effort has been made either by Hughes & Halsted, nor by DayMarcellus Co. to compel him to disgorge. He has in his own possession the fateful book of secret account. His testimony on the trial detailed as few names, facts,

dates, as possible; and, besides, Parsonnet still holds his long lean fingers on the pulse of Day-Marcellus Co.

And like a Zeppelin or a bird of prey, Twining, single, prosperous, specious, attractive, unscrupulous-still soars across the continent seeking whom he may devour, or whom he can peck at; for, be it remarked, his pecks here, there, everywhere, bring him bushels of coin.

Sargent, despondent, downcast, almost outcast, spending disconsolate days with his daughter at a second-rate boarding house, was routed out by Hughes of Hughes & Halsted.

"Sargent," said Hughes, "how's your heart?"

"Hang my heart," returned Sargent, "it does nothing else but rest. It's sound as a dollar. It's my appetite that worries me." "Haven't any?" asked Hughes. "Too much," smiled Sargent. "Sargent," said Hughes, "we're through with selling agents.' "I should think you would be," returned Sargent.

"We're going to market our own machines," said Hughes, "and for the purpose we're going to install a new department."

"Good," said Sargent, "you ought to have done it long ago."

"We're going to do it now, if we can. But we don't know how. If-if-,” faltered Hughes, "you'll put on your coat and come across the river, and,—and take charge of it for us," his glance strayed to the form of Genevieve, "and -and bring a woman secretary-."

Genevieve sprang forward. She was too late. Sargent crashed down to the floor. But he soon recovered.

"It's not my heart," he cried, "my God!-it's joy!"

Perhaps there was a little bit of hunger mixed in with it! you can't get everything to eat in boarding-houses of the second class.

Mm Hamilton Ostome

55

55

¶ Editor, Asa W. Russell; Business Manager, B. R. Briggs; Advertising Manager, E. Gordon Lee.

Office and plant: Aqueduct Building, Rochester, New York.

¶ TERMS: Subscription price $1.50 a year. Canada, $1.75; Foreign, $2.00, 15 cents a copy. Advertising rates on application. Forms close 10th of Month preceding date of issue.

¶ EDITORIAL POLICY:-It is the purpose of CASE AND COMMENT to voice the highest legal and ethical conceptions of the times; to act as a vehicle for the dissemination and interchange of the best thought of the members of the legal profession; to be both helpful and entertaining,-serving the attorney both in his work and in his hours of relaxation.

¶ Publication of an article does not necessarily imply editorial approval of the opinions expressed therein.

¶ Published monthly, by the Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company. President, W. B. Hale; Vice-President, J. B. Bryan; Treasurer, B. A. Rich; Secretary, G. M. Wood.

Shakespeare vs. Bacon

WIDESPREAD comment has been

made upon the decision recently rendered by Judge Richard S. Tuthill, of Chicago, in the circuit court, in an action brought by William N. Selig, moving picture promoter, to restrain Colonel George Fabyan and others from "defaming the name of William Shakespeare." It appears that Colonel Fabyan advocates the theory that Bacon was the real author of the Shakespearean plays, and that Shakespeare was merely employed by Bacon to interpret these dramatic works.

These views are based upon researches extending over several years, and carried on at great expense by the aid of an expert staff of literary workers. The publication of the volume presenting the evidence collected by Colonel Fabyan is sought to be enjoined on the ground that it would injure the production of Shakespeare's plays in moving pictures by tending to show that Bacon was the author. The injunction was denied, and damages awarded the defendant because of inconvenience sustained. Later newspaper reports state that Judge Tuthill has set aside his decision; probably upon some ground not relating to the question of the authorship of the dramas.

In his decision Judge Tuthill says in part:

That William Shakespeare was born April 23, 1564; that he went to London about 1586 or 1587, that for a time thereafter he made his living working for Burbage, that he later became an actor in Burbage's theater and in traveling theatrical companies, that he retired about 1609 or 1610 to live in Stratford-onAvon, where he engaged in business to the time of his death on April 23, 1616, and that Shakespeare was not an educated man, are allegations which the court finds true.

The court further finds that Francis Bacon was born January 26, 1560; that he was educated not only in English, but in French, Latin, Italian, German, and had a general education equal to or superior to any one of his age; that he was the compiler of a book of 1,560 axioms and phrases selected from the greatest authors and books of all time; that in his youth literary people were frowned upon in England, but in Paris literary people were in the favor of the reigning powers, and literature was having a renaissance. Bacon went to Paris in his early youth and spent several years in this atmosphere.

The court takes judicial notice of historical facts and facts well known, and finds that there has been for sixty years a controversy over the authorship of certain works which were published shortly after the death of Shakespeare and attributed to Shakespeare; that the question always has been an open question among scholars of equal authority and standing in the world of letters, literature, and knowledge as to the authorship of the abovementioned works, and that a vast bib

liography, estimated by those who are in a position to know, at 20,000 volumes, has been written in discussion of the vexed question.

The court further finds that by the published and acknowledged works of Francis Bacon there is given a cipher which Bacon devised in his early youth when in Paris, called the bilateral cipher; that the witness, Elizabeth Wells Gallup, has applied that cipher according to the directions left by Francis Bacon, and has found that the name and character of Shakespeare were used as a mask by Francis Bacon to publish philosophical facts, stories, and statements, contributing to the literary renaissance in England which has been the glory of the world.

The court further finds that the claim of the friends of Francis Bacon that he is the author of said works of Shakespeare, and the facts and circumstances in the real bibliography of the controversy over the question of authority and the proofs submitted herein convinced the court that Francis Bacon is the author.

It is not likely that an adverse pronouncement, however solemn, will be accepted as conclusive by either the Shakespearean or Baconian partisans in the world of letters.

The Elizabethan days are far away, and are likely to keep their secret,-if secret there be. A Philadelphia "medium" is said to have interviewed the spirits of Shakespeare and Bacon, and to have obtained the assurance of each that Shakespeare wrote the plays. But necromancy calling "spirits from the vasty deep" will receive little credence.

A good story is told of the time Proctor Knott asked a distinguished company to meet at dinner Ignatius Donnelly, then a member of Congress, and well known as an enthusiastic supporter of the Baconian theory. Inevitably the then Kentucky representative, Joseph C. S. Blackburn, and the renowned Kentucky humorist, Colonel Richard C. Wintersmith, were of the party.

Mr. Donnelly proceeded to state and elaborate his hypothesis and expound and elucidate his cryptogram. Colonel Wintersmith listened with the courteous attention which was his characteristic, says the Louisville Courier Journal. But, as the story lengthened and the argument thickened, the wine, which at a certain point usually made the Colonel at least abruptly frank, got in its work. At length he could stand it no longer. "Mr. Donnelly," he said, "I cannot al

low you to go any further on this line, because I know, as a matter of fact, that William Shakespeare, of Stratfordon-Avon, wrote those plays, every one of them." Donnelly, startled, said: "How could you know that, Colonel Wintersmith?" And, without a moment's hesitation, but with an air of finality, the Colonel replied: "Because I was there, sir, and I saw him write them." Though knocked almost speechless, Donnelly found voice to murmur, "Why, Colonel Wintersmith, it was three hundred years ago," and, turning placidly to Mr. Blackburn, the Colonel said, as if exchanging a pleasantry, "Joe, how time passes!"

A more plausible suggestion is made in a book referred to in the Philadelphia Ledger as having been published in London in 1728 under the title, "An Essay Against Too Much Reading." Evidently it was written some time before it was printed. The most notable parts of it are allusions to Shakespeare. One paragraph states:

Shakespeare's proceeding, and that I had from I will give you a short account of Mr. one of his intimate acquaintance. His being imperfect in some things was owing to his not being a scholar, which obliged him to have one of those chuckle-pated historians for his particular associate that could scarce speak a word but upon that subject; and he maintained him or he might have starved upon his history. And when he wanted anything in his way, as his plays were all historical, he sent to him and took down the heads of what was for his purpose in characters, which were thirty times as quick as running to the books to read for it. Then with his natural flowing wit he worked it into all shapes and forms, as his beautiful thoughts directed. The other put it into grammar, and instead of reading he stuck close to writing and study without book. How do you think reading could have assisted him in such great thoughts? It would only have lost time. When he found his thoughts grow on him so fast he could have writ forever had he liv'd so long.

It is credible that the actor and playwright of Stratford and London, by conversation with others and a free use of existing materials, should have prepared the plays that stand in his name. It seems likely that he gleaned in many fields and modified, rearranged, and adorned his gathered spoil with the plastic touch of genius. In any event, we may be thankful for the matchless