it is true that, taking the whole country over, there are hundreds of these cases each year, they are somewhat rare in an individual lawyer's experience. His law books furnish him no help in taking up such a case, and he may be at a loss to know what procedure to follow. Even though he has never had such a case, however, he can do something at once that may be helpful. He should not simply mull over the matter and gaze at the ceiling of his office waiting for an inspiration, but should begin action immediately. The first and most important question about a surprising document is whether or not it is genuine. All subsequent action in the matter, of course, depends upon this fact, and the most reliable information on the point should be obtained as soon as possible. In some instances a suspected document should be rushed to a competent specialist as an appendicitis patient is rushed to a hospital. Before receiving any outside assistance, however, the lawyer can do certain things that may throw light on the problem. He should at once study the probabilities in the case and without delay should interview and cross-examine those whose interests are attacked by the suspected document; he should also if possible interview the claimant and hear the story of the document in detail. The claimant, hoping for a favorable settlement, may at this point talk freely and even consent to talk without a lawyer being present. The witnesses to the document, if they will talk, should be interviewed, as well as those who will later support the document by testimony. The witnesses who will assail the document should be consulted in order to learn in detail why they think the document is not genuine. The lawyer who represents the claimant should also be interviewed in order to get as much of the story as he is willing to give. The attorney will also investigate the record of the dear friend or co-conspirator who usually appears prepared to testify to the actual signing of a forged document. This party should be interviewed, if this is possible, and careful notes made of all statements. In many instances this testimony is too good to be true, too definite, and exactly answers every requirement; it is sometimes reported where everyone sat and just what each one said ten years before. The cashier of the bank where the alleged signer of the document kept an account should be seen at once and should be engaged to examine the document later. The lawyer will also immediately begin to gather genuine signatures, at the bank and elsewhere, that t Examiner of Questioned Documents, New York City.