Counsel on both sides joined in the selection of myself. Three days were occupied in its decipherment. The will occupied two sides of a full sheet of legal cap. The original ink which was employed in the writing of the will was of pale gray color. The first obliterations were a series of pen and ink scratches and marks which destroyed the writing. Not satisfied with them the operator had with a saturated piece of blotting paper, brushed over the scratches and as that ink was of good quality every mark of writing had disappeared in the jumble and blots. It so happened that three inks had been employed. The original ink, the ink used for scratching and the one employed to do the blotting. The three inks were happily mixtures containing different constituents, and so by utilizing the reagent of one which did not affect the other, gradually the encrusted upper inks were removed and later the original writing appeared sufficiently plain not only to be read but to identify it. Photographs made before and after the chemical experiments, permitted court and counsel to make their own comparisons during the giving of the testimony about it. It permitted also the finding of the two witnesses who lived outside of the city and to learn many details from them as to Mr. Dimon's conduct in the matter. The restored will showed that Mrs. Keery at its date (1891) was still in his mind, and its destruction by himself--that he had changed his mind. Justice Ingraham completes his opinion in deciding the case as follows: "In this case, however, the long time that elapsed between the time of the delivery of the will to Mr. Morgan and the death of the testator, the absence of my satisfactory proof of the existence of the will from the time it was delivered to Mr. Morgan to the time of the testator's death, and the fact that the testator made another will, making substantially the same disposition of the property, which he subsequently destroyed, all tend to cast a doubt upon the fact that the will was in existence at the time of the testator's death, and there is positively no evidence that it was ever fraudulently destroyed. "I do not think the court is justified in diverting a large sum of money from those legally entitled to it, by allowing, a lost will to be proved, except upon the clearest and most satisfactory evidence of the existence of the will at the time of the testator's death. And the testimony in this case falls short of what I consider necessary to establish such a will. "There should be, therefore, judgment for the defendants with costs." * * * * * * *