ster,"
said Camusot, "or you might have given up all hope of seating your son
on the bench or of marrying him to Mlle. Blandureau."

"But it is no question of my son, nor of his marriage," said the
Vice-President; "we are talking of young Comte d'Esgrignon. Is he or
is he not guilty?"

"It seems that Chesnel deposited the amount to meet the bill with Mme.
du Croisier," said Michu, "and a crime has been made of a mere
irregularity. According to the charge, the Count made use of the lower
half of a letter bearing du Croisier's signature as a draft which he
cashed at the Kellers'."

"An imprudent thing to do," was Camusot's comment.

"But why is du Croisier proceeding against him if the amount was paid
in beforehand?" asked Vice-President Blondet.

"He does not know that the money was deposited with his wife; or he
pretends that he does not know," said Camusot.

"It is a piece of provincial spite," said Michu.

"Still it looks like a forgery to me," said old Blondet. No passion
could obscure judicial clear-sightedness in him.

"Do you think so?" returned Camusot. "But, at the outset, supposing
that the Count had no business to draw upon du Croisier, there would
still be no forgery of the signature; and the Count believed that he
had a right to draw on Croisier when Chesnel advised him that the
money had been placed to his credit."

"Well, then, where is the forgery?" asked Blondet. "It is the intent
to defraud which constitutes forgery in a civil action."

"Oh, it is clear, if you take du Croisier's version for truth, that
the signature was diverted from its purpose to obtain a sum of money
in spite of du Croisier's contrary injunction to his bankers," Camusot
answered.

"Gentlemen," said Blondet, "this seems to me to be a mere triffle, a
quibble.--Suppose you had the money, I ought perhaps to have waited
until I had your authorization; but I, Comte d'Esgrignon, was pressed
for money, so I---- Come, come, your prosecution is a piece of
revengeful spite. Forgery is defined by the law as an attempt to
obtain any advantage which rightfully belongs to another. There is no
forgery here, according to the letter of the Roman law, nor according
to the spirit of modern jurisprudence (always from the point of a
civil action, for we are not here concerned with the falsification of
public or authentic documents). Between private individuals the
essence of a forgery is the intent to defraud; where is it in this
case? In