that the violin offered in evidence at the trial was _not_ the one
produced in the police court, as against the defendant's five who
asserted that it _was_.

The testimony was all highly technical and confusing, and the jury
probably relied more upon their general impressions of the credibility
of the witnesses than upon anything else. It is likely that most of the
testimony, on both sides, in regard to the identity of the violin was
honestly given, for the question was one upon which a genuine divergence
of opinion was easily possible.

Eller's letter from Chicago so affected the jury that they disregarded
his testimony and reverted to that of August Gemunder, to whose evidence
attention has already been called, and who swore that it was "The Duke
of Cambridge" which Flechter had tried to sell to Durden. Alas for the
fallibility of even the most honest of witnesses!

The case was ably argued by both sides, and every phase of this curious
tangle of evidence given its due consideration. The defense very
properly laid stress upon the fact that it would have been a ridiculous
performance for Flechter to write the "Cave Dweller" letter and state
therein that he was "a violin dealer or maker," thus pointing,
unmistakably, to himself, and to further state that for one in his
position to dispose of it would be difficult and dangerous. The only
explanation for the "Cave Dweller" letter which they could offer,
however, was that some one interested in procuring Flechter's downfall
had caused it to be sent for that purpose. This might either be a
business rival or some one connected with the prosecution.

While Palmer was summing up for the defense he noticed Assistant