The architect brought suit, and at the trial swore to the dates and places of the interviews between Cohen and himself, and to all the surrounding circumstances and details connected with the execution of the plans in question.
His lawyer expected that the defendant would interpose the defense that the plans were inferior, defective, or worthless.

Not at all! Mr.Cohen swore that he had never ordered the plans and, in fact, had _never seen the architect in his life!_ He alleged that until the suit was brought he had never even _heard_ of him, and that either the architect was demented or a liar, or else some other Cohen had given the order.

The architect and his lawyer were thunderstruck, but they had no witnesses to corroborate their contentions, since no one had ever seen Cohen in the other's office.
The jury disagreed and the architect in some way secured Cohen's indictment for perjury.

But during the criminal trial, at which I defended him, Mr.Cohen calmly persisted in his denial that he had ever enjoyed the honor of the architect's acquaintance, and after two prosecutions, in each of which the jury hopelessly disagreed, the indictments against him were dismissed.

From this it may easily be inferred that no fact is too patent to be denied.
Frequently the more heroic the denial the greater its verisimilitude to truth.