at
as the case went on the opinions of those who acted for the young
Earl, and more especially the opinion of the young Earl himself, had
been changed. Prompted to do so by various motives, they, who had
undertaken to prove that the Countess was no Countess, had freely
accorded to her her title, and had themselves entertained her
daughter with all due acknowledgment of rank and birth. Nevertheless
the name of the case remained and had become common in people's
mouths. The very persons who would always speak of the Countess Lovel
spoke also very familiarly of the coming trial in "Lovel v. Murray,"
and now the 9th of November had come round and the case of "Lovel v.
Murray and Another" was to be tried. The nature of the case was
this. The two ladies, mother and daughter, had claimed the personal
property of the late lord as his widow and daughter. Against that
claim Earl Lovel made his claim, as heir-at-law, alleging that there
was no widow, and no legitimate child. The case had become infinitely
complicated by the alleged existence of the first wife,--in which
case she as widow would have inherited. But still the case went on
as Lovel v. Murray,--the Lovel so named being the Earl, and not the
alleged Italian widow.

Such being the question presumably at issue, it became the duty of
the Solicitor-General to open the pleadings. In the ordinary course
of proceeding it would have been his task to begin by explaining
the state of the family, and by assuming that he could prove the
former marriage and the existence of the former wife at the time
of the latter marriage. His evidence would have been subject to
cross-examination, and then another counter-statement would have been
made on behalf of the Countess, and her witnesses would have been
brought forward. When all this had been done the judge would have
charged the jury, and with the jury would have rested the decision.
This would have taken many days, and all the joys and sorrows, all
the mingled hopes and anxieties of a long trial had been expected.
Bets had been freely made, odds being given at first on behalf of
Lord Lovel, and afterwards odds on behalf of the Countess. Interest
had been made to get places in the court, and the clubs had resounded
now with this fact and now with that which had just been brought home
from Sicily as certain. Then had come suddenly upon the world the
tidings that there would absolutely be no trial, that the great case
of "Lovel v. Murray