"Very well; then you know all about it. At least as much as the public knows generally. It has now been decided on the part of Joseph Mason,—the husband's eldest son, who is endeavouring to get the property,—that she shall be indicted for perjury."
"For perjury!"
"Yes; and in doing that, regarding the matter from his point of view, they are not deficient in judgment."
"But how could she have been guilty of perjury?"
"In swearing that she had been present when her husband and the three witnesses executed the deed. If they have any ground to stand on—and I believe they have none whatever, but if they have, they would much more easily get a verdict against her on that point than on a charge of forgery. Supposing it to be the fact that her husband never executed such a deed, it would be manifest that she must have sworn falsely in swearing that she saw him do so."
"Why, yes; one would say so."
"But that would afford by no means conclusive evidence that she had forged the surreptitious deed herself."
"It would be strong presumptive evidence that she was cognizant of the forgery."
"Perhaps so,—but uncorroborated would hardly bring a verdict after such a lapse of years. And then moreover a prosecution for forgery, if unsuccessful, would produce more painful feeling. Whether successful or unsuccessful it would do so. Bail could not be taken in the first instance, and such a prosecution would create a stronger feeling that the poor lady was being persecuted."
"Those who really understand the matter will hardly thank them for their mercy."