it, therefore, Patrick figured that the relatives
would have selfish reasons for accepting the forgery as genuine.

The preparation of this bogus will occupied about a month, and the next
question was the procurement of witnesses. It was desirable to get the
same persons who witnessed the former will. These were Walter H.
Wetherbee and W. F. Harmon, clerks for many years at Swenson's banking
house. On the assumption that Wetherbee had been injured by Rice and was
therefore hostile to him, Jones practically unfolded the scheme. He
told Wetherbee that one of Mr. Rice's bonds had disappeared and that
Rice had accused Wetherbee of stealing it. He wound up with the
suggestion, "I will get one witness and you can get another, and the
thing is done." But Wetherbee indignantly declined to join in the
conspiracy.

Morris Meyers, who had been employed in Patrick's office, and David L.
Short, a friend of both, were the false witnesses finally selected.

They were clothed with the appearance of honesty and were brought into
contact with Rice by Jones at various times: Meyers as a notary public,
and Short as commissioner of deeds for the State of Texas, an
appointment procured for him by Patrick probably for this specific
purpose.

The date of the forged will, June 30, 1900, was selected to correspond
with the date of three genuine papers which Rice acknowledged before
Short on that date.

[Illustration: Last page of the forged will of 1900, showing the forgery
of Rice's signature, and the false attestation of Short and Meyers.]

The next step was to obviate the absurdity of Patrick's being selected
as the residuary legatee at a time when he was engaged in bitter
litigation against Rice. The best way out was for Patrick to pose as a
lawyer who had brought about a settlement of this expensive litigation
and thus won Rice's regard. Patrick first tried to accomplish this by
getting friends to visit Rice and urge a settlement. But Rice rebuffed
them all. Accordingly, Patrick again resorted to forgery, and in
August, 1900, manufactured an instrument of settlement, dated March 6,
1900.

But such an agreement would not explain the paradox of a man whom Rice
hated and despised and did not know by sight turning up as the principal
beneficiary under his will. It was necessary to manufacture evidence to
be used after Rice's death in support of his claim of close relations.
The idea of a personal meeting with Rice had been abandoned on