pprehensive, from the long stay of the two visitors, that
they were ransacking the rooms and hiding portable articles about their
persons, had overcome her superstitious antipathy, and opened the door
quickly, so that she might catch them in the act. But they were only
standing in the middle of the room, earnestly talking to each other.

The old lady muttered an inaudible apology; and the two friends hastened
to take their departure.

CHAPTER III.

OVERTOP FINDS A SENSIBLE WOMAN.

Next morning, Mr. Wesley Tiffles, after an inexpensive breakfast at a
cheap restaurant in Chatham street, set out on his mission of goodness.
He was reduced to his last dollar, but felt opulent in the possession of
his diamond breastpin--that tower of moral strength to the borrower. He
whistled as he walked, and thought what would be the best name for the
new patent window fastener of the future. "Union," "American,"
"Columbian," "Peoples'," "Washington," "Ne Plus Ultra," and a score
more, were turned over and rejected. Finally he settled upon the
"Cosmopolitan Window Fastener," meaning that its destined field of
usefulness was the whole civilized globe. Patents for it could be and
should be obtained in England, France, Germany, Russia, and Spain.

While Wesley Tiffles was taking this rosy view of the "Cosmopolitan
Window Fastener," he stumbled upon Fayette Overtop, Esq., who was
walking briskly toward his office, and thinking over a hard case in
which his services had been secured the day before.

The firm of Overtop & Maltboy had recently come into a small but paying
business, in this way: The release of Marcus Wilkeson was generally
supposed to have been effected, not by his innocence, but by the skilful
and professional, but unprincipled efforts of his legal advisers. Their
name was not unfavorably known among the thieves and murderers of the
city; and several individuals belonging to those classes of society
resolved to employ them when they got into their next little difficulty.
And, since the inquest, another thing had greatly contributed to the
prosperity of the firm. We allude to the case of Slapman _vs_. Slapman.

This was an action for divorce, with alimony, brought by Mrs. Grazella
Jigbee Slapman against her husband, Ferdinand P. Slapman. The ground
upon which the separation was sought, was the continual brutality of Mr.
Slapman toward his wife.

It was the law and the custom, in cases where both parties to the action