a box of cigars from a drawer of the desk, opened
it and thrust it toward the waiting lawyer, who, however, shook his
head in refusal, and continued to move about the room rather restlessly.
Demarest paid no attention to the other's invitation to a seat, but the
courtesy was perfunctory on Gilder's part, and he hardly perceived
the perturbation of his caller, for he was occupied in selecting and
lighting a cigar with the care of a connoisseur. Finally, he spoke
again, and now there was an infinite contentment in the rich voice.

"Three years--three years! That ought to be a warning to the rest of the
girls." He looked toward Demarest for acquiescence.

The lawyer's brows were knit as he faced the proprietor of the store.

"Funny thing, this case!" he ejaculated. "In some features, one of the
most unusual I have seen since I have been practicing law."

The smug contentment abode still on Gilder's face as he puffed in
leisurely ease on his cigar and uttered a trite condolence.

"Very sad!--quite so! Very sad case, I call it." Demarest went on
speaking, with a show of feeling: "Most unusual case, in my estimation.
You see, the girl keeps on declaring her innocence. That, of course, is
common enough in a way. But here, it's different. The point is, somehow,
she makes her protestations more convincing than they usually do. They
ring true, as it seems to me."

Gilder smiled tolerantly.

"They didn't ring very true to the jury, it would seem," he retorted.
And his voice was tart as he added: "Nor to the judge, since he deemed
it his duty to give her three years."

"Some persons are not very sensitive to impressions in such cases, I
admit," Demarest returned, coolly. If he meant any subtlety of allusion
to his hearer, it failed wholly to pierce the armor of complacency.

"The stolen goods were found in her locker," Gilder declared in a
tone of finality. "Some of them, I have been given to understand, were
actually in the pocket of her coat."

"Well," the attorney said with a smile, "that sort of thing makes
good-enough circumstantial evidence, and without circumstantial evidence
there would be few convictions for crime. Yet, as a lawyer, I'm free to
admit that circumstantial evidence alone is never quite safe as proof of
guilt. Naturally, she says some one else must have put the stolen goods
there. As a matter of exact reasoning, that is quite within the measure
of possibility. That sort of thing has been done countle