"Because," replied Mr. Woodhull, deliberately, and in a voice that penetrated every part of the court room, "Ray's coat had his name on the back of the collar, and this has no name; then, this coat has some time been torn on the right side and neatly mended, while Ray's coat, when he left the farm on Friday night, had no such mark upon it." This testimony made a pronounced impression upon the whole audience, for it gave the first hint that had yet been received as to the line of the defense. Up to that moment it had generally been believed that no attempt would be made to show that the coat found was not Ray's; in fact, it was generally supposed that this could not be denied, and that the best the defense could do would be to prove that the boy had lost it previous to the robbery. When, now, Mr. Woodhull so emphatically denied the identity of the coat, the people in the audience looked at each other in amazement, and the witnesses who had sworn so positively just a few moments before that Ray had worn this identical coat now looked as if it had just dawned upon them that there might be two coats of the very same material. The lawyer associated with the little attorney in the prosecution also seemed to realize that the strongest link in the chain of circumstantial evidence which had been woven around the prisoner was in danger of being broken, for he turned abruptly to the witness, saying: "That will do, sir." Mr. Eaton sprang to his feet. "Wait a moment, sir," he said to Mr. Woodhull. "I believe you are a witness for the prosecution, and as such I have my right of cross-examination." As no one could deny this right, he proceeded: "You have stated, sir, that the boy, from his arrival home on Saturday, until his arrest in the evening, seemed troubled about something. Do you know any reason, apart from participating in this burglary, why he should have seemed so?" "I object to that question," cried the little attorney, struggling to his feet. "Your honor," said Mr. Eaton, "the prosecution has taken care to show us that this lad was not himself on his return home; that for some unknown reason he seemed troubled and agitated. Of course, their inference is that he was guilty of the crime he now stands charged with, and that this accounts for the strangeness in his appearance and demeanor. I only wish to show that there was sufficient reason for this behavior without any such supposition as that of his guilt." "The objection is not sustained," said the judge; and Mr. Woodhull gave his answer: