Then, out of a clear sky, as it were, came letters to each of the stockholders, posted in Paris and written by the fugitive. In these letters he made the most unfair charges against the witness and against Mr. Drew. Without in any way attempting to explain, confess or express regret for his own defection, he horrified both Mr. Stevens and Mr. Drew with the staggering accusation that they had tricked him into selling certain downtown property at an outrageously low figure, when they knew at the time of the transaction that an insurance company had its eye on the property with the view to erecting two mammoth office buildings on the ground. Subsequent events, declared the writer, bore out his contention, for it was on record that his two partners did sell to the insurance company for nearly ten times the amount they had paid him for the property; and, moreover, at that very moment two large buildings were standing on the ground that had once been occupied by his ancient and insignificant six story structures. In so many words, this old defaulter (to use Mr. Stevens' surprisingly acid words) deliberately sought to discredit them in the eyes of their fellow-directors and stockholders. He accused them of foul methods and actually had the effrontery to warn all those interested in the business with them to be on their guard or they would be tricked as he had been. (Note: One of these letters, now five years old, was introduced in evidence as Exhibit A.) Sampson afterwards found himself marvelling over the assistant district attorney's stupidity in introducing this particular bit of evidence. It was the cross-examination that opened his eyes to the atrocious mistake the State had made in volunteering the evidence touching upon the real-estate transaction. This extraordinary behaviour on the part of the defendant quite naturally irritated--(Mr. Stevens would not say infuriated, although Mr. O'Brien, on cross-examination, tried his level best to make him use the word)--both the witness and Mr. Drew, who felt that their honour had been vilely attacked. They had no difficulty in convincing their partners and other interested persons that the charge was ridiculous and made solely for the purpose of enlisting their sympathy in behalf of one they were now forced to describe as a cowardly criminal and no longer as a misguided unfortunate. It was then, and then only, that the witness and Mr. Drew took the matter before the Grand Jury and obtained the indictment against the defendant. Having covered the preliminary stages of the case pretty thoroughly, Mr. Stevens was required to tell all that he knew about the actual misappropriation of the funds. This he did with exceeding clarity and sorrow. However, despite his mildness, he did not leave a shred of Mr. Hildebrand's honour untouched; he had it in tatters by mid-afternoon and at four o'clock, when court adjourned, there wasn't anything left of it at all.