The advocate of Malus first stated briefly the accusation. Then Malus made oath that the statement was correct. Next the defendants made oath to the contrary. Then Piso, as advocate for the defendants, proceeded to question Malus. Was it not possible that he had long ago received payment, but had gradually, through press of affairs of much greater consequence, lost sight of the fact? Malus replied that he was not apt to be forgetful in business matters: besides, he distinctly remembered having made an annual application in writing at the beginning of each year for the sum due him, to say nothing of many personal applications. He was prepared to furnish witnesses to the fact of such applications, both written and oral, during a full quarter of a century.
Piso inquired why he had not brought suit before. Malus replied that he had not been pressed for money; but that the leading motive for his long delay had been mercy. He hated to push matters to extremities; but had at last come, very reluctantly, to feel that forbearance with such unscrupulous persons was no longer a virtue, but rather an encouragement to wrong-doing.
Here his advocate suggested that he probably was in the habit of giving a receipt for moneys paid him.
“I always do it,” he said promptly. “Of course a receipt is always expected and demanded in case of large payments. If the defendants had paid me the money due they would have demanded a receipt and I should have given it. Let them produce my receipt.”
Malus indulged himself with what he meant for a smile, which was broadly imitated by his party.
“Do you recognize this?” inquired Piso, producing a discolored sheet of papyrus, and handing it to Malus. The man’s hand visibly trembled as he took it; and as his eye glanced along the page he could not prevent a ripple of dismay from passing across his features. But it was gone in an instant.
“A very clever forgery!” he sneered.
Piso took back the paper and handed it to the judges, together with some letters which he himself had received from Malus in course of years on business matters.
“The honorable judges will perceive,” said he, after a few moments had been allowed for a comparison of the papers, “that if the receipt is a forgery, it is an exceedingly clever one—perhaps will perceive that it is so clever that none but an expert scribe, who has made a close study of the plaintiff’s handwriting in many specimens, could possibly have done it. This is what the leading scribes in the city tell me, and are here to testify. But Shaphan and Nathan are not skillful scribes—as you may see from these specimens received from them in course of business,”—and he passed over to the judges a parcel.