But the faot that Mr Slee was not able to restore earlier writing is -no longer proof that no such writing was ever made on that paper, and in this advance in chemical knowledge lies one of the greatest dangers to businessmen. A year or so ago a firm doing a large insurance business in New York signed three cheques brought by the cashier to them in the course of his usual business. The cheques were made payable to anuther insurance company. Some time after this the cashier disappeared, and no trace of him has ever been discovered. It was then fonnd by the officers of the •(company that he had, by the use of 'chemioals, obliterated the name of the payee on these ohsquea and inserted bis own, and in that way waa able to draw the money, amounting to several thou sand dollars. The company brought suit against the bank, claiming that it had paid forged cheques, and Professor Doremns was oalled as an expert for the bank. Be testified that If there had been obliteration of the name of the original payee it would be established by chemical treatment. The ohequea were submitted to snob, ohemical treat ment, but there was no revelation of alteration. Mr Slee was oalled as an expert, and he testified that while Prof. Doremus' assertion would have been correot if made some months before, yet that it was now possible to obliterate the names on commercial paper in such a way as to defy chemical reagents, aad to prove his assertion Mr Slee, in the presence of the jury, wrote upon slips of paper, then obliterated the names by chemicals, and Professor Doremus was unable by any treatment to restore this writing, so that it was then proven that chemical soience had now taught crimin als how this thing might be done, although such proof served not to help the company, since it could /not be proven that it was done in this case. The company was compelled to pa; the cheques. 