extended the white hand of Kate and Mrs. Aubrey, both of which were fervently kissed and shaken by those who were nearest. Again the carriage moved on; and quickening their speed, the horses soon bore them out of the village. Within less than half an hour afterwards, the tearful eyes of the travellers, as they passed a familiar turning of the road, had looked their last on Yatton! * * * * * NOTE _concerning the law of_ ERASURES _and_ ESTOPPELS. I. ERASURES.--The question--What is the effect of an erasure, an interlineation, or alteration apparent in a material part of a deed above thirty years old, when offered in evidence?--has led to much discussion both among professional and general readers of this work, as well at home as abroad; and many communications upon the subject have been received by the author. Lord Widdrington at the trial, and subsequently he and the full court, held, in the case of _Doe_ d. _Titmouse_ v. _Jolter_, that such an erasure was fatal to the case of the party who relied on the instrument in which it was exhibited. In constructing this portion of the story, the author, aware of some difference of opinion on the subject among lawyers, relied upon the following passage in a work of great and long-established authority, (BULLER'S _Nisi Prius_, p. 255,) in which the law is thus laid down--"If there be any [material] blemish, by razure or interlineation, in a deed, it ought to be proved, though it were above thirty years old, by the witnesses if living, and if dead, by proving the handwriting of at least one of the witnesses, and also the hand of the party, _in order to encounter the presumption arising from the blemishes in the deed_." Such, also, is the law laid down in Lord Chief Baron Gilbert's Treatise on Evidence, (p. 89,) and the proposition appears adopted, and these two high authorities cited, in the last edition, (the ninth,) of that celebrated standard text-book, PHILLIPS _on Evidence_, p. 205, published since the former edition of this work. There is an impression, however, that this strict rule would not _now_ be acted upon; on the ground that the presumption resulting from a continued possession, in conformity with the effect of a deed with erasure or interlineation, is strong enough to overcome the presumption of forgery afforded by the alterations themselves. Still it is possible to foresee great danger arising out of the adoption of such a rule: for a man enjoying an estate in lands, less than one of fee simple, may alter the deed so as to give to himself that superior estate, and then, after a lapse of thirty years, produce the deed so altered, and thereby defeat the innocent party challenging his title to the property. Possibly it would now be submitted as a question for a jury to decide, _whether the alteration had been made previously or subsequently to the delivery of the deed?_ for if _previously_, the deed remains valid and binding. A deed thirty