This will had been deposited in the hands of Messrs.
Wethered and Hibbert, solicitors to the deceased, and by it Mr.Brooks left his personalty equally divided between his two sons, but had left his business entirely to his youngest son, with a charge of L2000 a year upon it, payable to Percival.

You see that Murray Brooks therefore had a very deep interest in that second will being found null and void.
"Old Mr.Hibbert had very ably instructed his son, and Walter Hibbert's opening speech was exceedingly clever.

He would show, he said, on behalf of his client, that the will dated February 1st, 1908, could never have been made by the late Mr.Brooks, as it was absolutely contrary to his avowed intentions, and that if the late Mr.Brooks did on the day in question make any fresh will at all, it certainly was _not_ the one proved by Mr.Percival Brooks, for that was absolutely a forgery from beginning to end.

Mr.Walter Hibbert proposed to call several witnesses in support of both these points.
"On the other hand, Mr.Henry Oranmore, K.C., very ably and courteously replied that he too had several witnesses to prove that Mr.Brooks certainly did make a will on the day in question, and that, whatever his intentions may have been in the past, he must have modified them on the day of his death, for the will proved by Mr.Percival Brooks was found after his death under his pillow, duly signed and witnessed and in every way legal.
"Then the battle began in sober earnest.

There were a great many witnesses to be called on both sides, their evidence being of more or less importance--chiefly less.