A further discrepancy was apparent in the form of the figure "seven," Howe invariably forming it laboriously and with a vertical stroke at the top, whereas Ashton had always made it in a continuous stroke. In support of his statement Howe produced some memoranda of sums due to himself, which he asserted to be the handwriting of Ashton. In these the figure seven was invariably formed in the same way as Howe made it, while the figure was never made in that fashion by Ashton. To account for one sum of £200, which he claimed to have lent to the deceased, Howe stated that he had borrowed the sum from his mother-in-law, and in corroboration produced a promissory note which he said he had given her at the time. The note was dated 1889, and the date-mark to have coincided with this should have been "89." An examination of this document suggested to the judge, Mr. Justice Wills, that there had been some tampering with the date. A hole in the paper came where the "8" should have been, the explanation offered for this being that the paper had been put upon a file. The appearance of the curve of what was left of the first letter, however, was not like the curve of an "8," and by carefully working at the back of the paper with an instrument, the torn edges of the hole were pushed back into their place, and the figures of the year 1890 were made plainly visible. So carefully thought out had this fraud been that it took twelve days to unravel the whole matter. After the exposures described above Howe naturally lost his case, and the papers were sent to the Public Prosecutor. Subsequently Howe was tried at the Old Bailey for forgery and convicted. * * * * * The trial of Frederick Pilcher at the Old Bailey in July, 1910, on the charge of forging his cousin's will, was notable as being the first occasion upon which chemical evidence as to the age of modern inks has been given. Pilcher, who was a naval architect and colonel in the Territorials, in Liverpool, had for many years been on very friendly terms with his cousin, Marian Lilian Kerferd, and had been entrusted by her with the management of some of her property. Miss Kerferd died in March, 1909, leaving an unsigned will in which she divided the bulk of her estate, amounting to £20,000 to £30,000, between various relatives, while only £130 a year was left to Colonel Pilcher, whom she had appointed her executor. Shortly after her death Pilcher produced a signed will bearing the date of 1898, which he stated he had found among the papers of the deceased, and in this will he was left the whole of the property and appointed sole executor. He obtained probate of this will and took possession of the estate, dealing liberally with the members of the family mentioned in the unsigned will.