at the instrument; Mr.
Sterling, Mr. Crystal, and Mr. Mansfield also looking extremely serious.

"I've hit them _now_," said Mr. Subtle to those behind him, as he leaned
back, and looked with no little triumph at his opponents--"_Was_ there
ever anything so lucky in this world before?" From what apparently
inadequate and trifling causes often flow great results! The plain fact
of the case was merely this. The attorney's clerk, in copying out the
deed, which was one of considerable length, had written eight or ten
words by mistake; and fearing to exasperate his master, by rendering
necessary a new deed and stamp, and occasioning trouble and delay, had
neatly scratched out the erroneous words, and over the erasure written
the correct ones. As he was the party who was intrusted with seeing to
and witnessing the execution of the instrument, he of course took no
notice of the alteration, and--see the result! The ownership of an
estate of ten thousand a-year about to turn upon the effect of this
erasure!

"Hand me up the deed," said the judge; and inspected it minutely for a
minute or two, holding it up, once or twice, to the light.

"Has any one a magnifying-glass in court?" inquired the
Attorney-General, with a look of increasing anxiety. No one happened to
have one.

"Is it necessary, Mr. Attorney?" said Lord Widdrington, handing down the
instrument to him with an ominous look.

"Well--you object, of course, Mr. Subtle--as I understand you--that this
deed is void, on account of an erasure in a material part of it?"
inquired Lord Widdrington.

"That is my objection, my Lord," said Mr. Subtle, sitting down.

"Now, Mr. Attorney," continued the judge, turning to the
Attorney-General, prepared to take a note of any observations which he
might offer. The spectators--the whole court--were aware that the great
crisis of the case had arrived; and there was a sickening silence. The
Attorney-General, with perfect calmness and self-possession, immediately
addressed the court in answer to this very critical and unexpected
objection. That there _was_ an erasure, which, owing to the hurry with
which the instrument had been examined, had been overlooked, was
indisputable. The Attorney-General's argument was, first, that the
erasure was in a part not material; secondly, that even if in a material
part of the deed, it would not be avoided, but the alteration would be
presumed to have taken place before the execution of the deed.[33