_Chairman._ Well now, go ahead! What is your name? _The Accused._ My name’s _Lehmann_ too. _Chairman._ You are accused of having published a poem in the Salon under the name of our honoured and esteemed Professor Johannes Minckwitz, and so to have passed off your own production for his. What have you to say for yourself? _Accused._ Nix.[10] _Lawyer Hamlet._ Gentlemen of the jury, I beg that you will note this “nix”; it is of the greatest importance. _Chairman._ I must request the defendant not to interrupt the proceedings. Prisoner, no doubt you are aware of the fact that it is culpable to assign to Professor Minckwitz the name of poet--that is, of course I mean poet of verses which he did not make. _Accused._ I did not know it, Mr. Chairman; I am innocent. _Lawyer Hamlet._ Gentlemen of the jury, I beg that you will note these words; they are of the utmost importance to the following transactions. _Chairman._ I wish to ask whether the accused has ever read the poems of Professor Minckwitz. _The Accused_ (_in violent excitement_). Never, Mr. Chairman, never! My record is spotless. _Chairman._ Why did you not read the poems? _The Accused._ All my efforts to obtain the volume were fruitless. I called upon three of my friends who possess a well-equipped library; two of them threatened to impeach me for libel, the third kicked me down stairs. _Chairman._ You may sit down. (_To the jury._) A number of witnesses have been summoned before the court whose names the _Kleinstädter_ is also charged with having forged. It seems indeed that forgery of names has been systematically indulged in by the prisoner. (_To the bailiff._) Bid the witnesses enter. (_General tumult. Chairman’s bell._) _Chairman_ (_to first witness_). What is your name? _Witness._ Dr. Max Hirsch. _Chairman._ Not related to the accused? Not in his service? _Witness._ No. _Chairman._ In the _Kleinstädter’s_ second letter a speech is quoted which purports to have been delivered by you in Parliament, beginning, “In England ... Sheffield ... partnership ... etc.” Is that correct? _Witness._ No. (_Sits down._) _Chairman._ Second witness: His Majesty the Emperor of Siam. In his fourth letter the _Kleinstädter_ relates how your most serene Highness said to your Highness’ servant among other things, “Ra-phra, how could my predecessor condemn a man of your integrity?” Is that true? _Witness._ Never a word of it, by Jove. (_Sits down._) _Chairman._ Third witness: His Excellency the Imperial Chancellor Freiherr von Beust. _Lawyer Hamlet._ I protest against the examination of this witness. Mr. Chairman and Judges, without venturing to impute motives not strictly impersonal to the witness, I feel it my duty to call attention to the fact that the relations between the accused and the witness are too close to assure an unbiassed testimony. Both are countrymen, both are great men; in the name of my client I move that this witness should not be cross-examined.