“Your honor,” insisted Shannon, “I am doing the best I can to have the witness tell a plain, straightforward story, and I think that it is obvious that he is doing so.”

“Object!” reiterated Steger, vociferously.  “Your honor, I insist that the district attorney has no right to prejudice the minds of the jury by flattering estimates of the sincerity of the witness.  What he thinks of the witness and his sincerity is of no importance in this case.  I must ask that your honor caution him plainly in this matter.”

“Objection sustained,” declared Judge Payderson, “the prosecution will please be more explicit”; and Shannon went on with his case.

Stener’s testimony, in one respect, was most important, for it made plain what Cowperwood did not want brought out—­namely, that he and Stener had had a dispute before this; that Stener had distinctly told Cowperwood that he would not loan him any more money; that Cowperwood had told Stener, on the day before he secured this check, and again on that very day, that he was in a very desperate situation financially, and that if he were not assisted to the extent of three hundred thousand dollars he would fail, and that then both he and Stener would be ruined.  On the morning of this day, according to Stener, he had sent Cowperwood a letter ordering him to cease purchasing city loan certificates for the sinking-fund.  It was after their conversation on the same afternoon that Cowperwood surreptitiously secured the check for sixty thousand dollars from Albert Stires without his (Stener’s) knowledge; and it was subsequent to this latter again that Stener, sending Albert to demand the return of the check, was refused, though the next day at five o’clock in the afternoon Cowperwood made an assignment.  And the certificates for which the check had been purloined were not in the sinking-fund as they should have been.  This was dark testimony for Cowperwood.

If any one imagines that all this was done without many vehement objections and exceptions made and taken by Steger, and subsequently when he was cross-examining Stener, by Shannon, he errs greatly.  At times the chamber was coruscating with these two gentlemen’s bitter wrangles, and his honor was compelled to hammer his desk with his gavel, and to threaten both with contempt of court, in order to bring them to a sense of order.  Indeed while Payderson was highly incensed, the jury was amused and interested.

“You gentlemen will have to stop this, or I tell you now that you will both be heavily fined.  This is a court of law, not a bar-room.  Mr. Steger, I expect you to apologize to me and your colleague at once.  Mr. Shannon, I must ask that you use less aggressive methods.  Your manner is offensive to me.  It is not becoming to a court of law.  I will not caution either of you again.”

Both lawyers apologized as lawyers do on such occasions, but it really made but little difference.  Their individual attitudes and moods continued about as before.