This was the frigid tone of a greeting between the mouthy criminal advocate and the patron attorney who buttered his bread on both sides. I am told that this bumptiousness on the one hand, and humbleness on the other, is the almost invariable style of intercourse between the technically upper and the technically lower ranks of the legal profession. Much of the power of wig and gown is said to depend upon the maintenance of a relative status in the business of the law. After a moment or two of iciness, Mr. Snayke's consciousness of what was due to the attorney warmed him, so he grew polite and more condescending towards his inferior brother and paymaster. "You see, Croak," said the great Snayke, "that it is very important to frame this charge against the prisoner accurately, and I should like to know the real facts of the case--such as can be established in evidence exactly--which I do not yet. Did the prisoner steal a cheque with the amount and so forth filled in, and with his master's signature attached in his master's own handwriting, or did the fellow steal a blank cheque, and fill it in, and sign it with his master's name? The distinction is important to the prisoner himself, because the different facts establish different crimes; but the prosecutor is far more interested, as it seems to me, in this part of the affair than the accused." "Pardon me, sir, if I say I don't see _that_," the attorney ventured to say. "Oh, obviously," replied Mr. Snayke. "If the cheque had been perfectly drawn by the prosecutor--if it had his signature making the 50_l._ 4_s._ 1½_d._ payable to Messrs. Clockwork and Rigid or bearer--if it was a complete and genuine cheque, then it is plain that the loss must be borne by Mr. Crapp. It was an act of embezzlement of a cheque or its proceeds by his own clerk. Suppose, on the other hand, that the prisoner stole a blank cheque, and wrote his master's name at the foot thereof, that would be a forgery; and the bank must bear the loss, because they have no right or authority to pay forged cheques." A light entered the head of the attorney. He was lawyer enough to see a point when his microscopic vision had been sharpened, and when the point was held up to him. He told Mr. Snayke that he could not distinctly say--he had not positively ascertained from the prosecutor--whether or not the cheque was stolen in blank, or after it had been filled up and signed. He would see how the matter stood in this respect, and further instruct Mr. Snayke.