Sir Robert repented of having made this agreement, broke his promise, and took out a writ against his cousin for the _mesne rents_. They amounted to an immense sum, which Mr. Percy was utterly unable to pay, and he could have had no hope of avoiding ruin, had the claim been by law decided against him. By fortunate circumstances, however, he had, while this cause was pending, recovered that lost conveyance, which proved his right to the Hampshire estate. Of this he had apprized Sir Robert, who had persisted, nevertheless, in holding possession, and in his claim for the _mesne rents_. The present action was brought by Mr. Percy in resistance of this unjust claim, and for the recovery of his property.” Not one word of invective, of eloquence, of ornament, or of any attempt at pathos, did our barrister mix with this statement. It was his object to put the jury and the court clearly in possession of facts, which, unadorned, he knew would appear stronger than if encumbered by any flowers of oratory. Having produced the deed, conveying the Hampshire estate to his father, Alfred called evidence to prove the signature of Sir John Percy, and the handwriting of the witnesses. He farther proved that this conveyance had been formerly seen among his father’s papers at Percy-hall, showed it had been recently recovered from Mr. Falconer’s box of papers, and explained how it had been put there by mistake, and he supported this fact by the evidence of Commissioner Falconer, father-in-law to the defendant.--Alfred rested his cause on these proofs, and waited, anxious to know what defence the defendant was prepared to make. To his astonishment and consternation, Sir Robert’s counsel produced another deed of Sir John Percy’s, revoking the deed by which Sir John had made over his Hampshire estate to his younger grandson, Mr. Percy; it appearing by a clause in the original deed that a power for this purpose had been therein reserved. This deed of revocation was handed to the judge and to the jury, that it might be examined. The two deeds were carefully compared. The nicest inspection could not discover any difference in the signature or seal. When Mr. Friend examined them, he was in dismay. The instrument appeared perfect. Whilst the jury were occupied in this examination, Mr. Friend and Alfred had a moment to consult together. “We are undone,” whispered Mr. Friend, “if they establish this deed of revocation--it sets us aside for ever.” Neither Mr. Friend nor Alfred had any doubt of its being a forgery, but those, who had plunged thus desperately in guilt, would probably be provided with perjury sufficient to support their iniquity. “If we had been prepared!” said Mr. Friend: “but how could we be prepared for such a stroke? Even now, if we had time, we could summon witnesses who would discredit theirs, but--”