ARTHUR.T Stories ----A Finder of Missing Heirs ----VIII---Page 44

The writer busied himself with finding some one who had known Mrs.

Petersen, and by an odd coincidence discovered a woman living in the

Bronx who had been an intimate friend and playmate of the little

Petersen girl. This witness, who was but a child when the incident had

occurred, clearly recalled the fact that Ebbe Petersen had not decided

to take his wife and daughter with him on the voyage until a few days

before they sailed. They had then invited her, the witness--now a Mrs.

Cantwell--to go with them, but her mother had declined to allow her to

do so. Mrs. Petersen, moreover, according to Mrs. Cantwell, was a woman of education, who wrote a particularly fine hand. Other papers were
discovered executed at about the same time, signed by Mrs. Petersen with her full name. It seemed inconceivable that she should have signed any deed, much less one of so much importance, with her _mark_, and,
moreover, that she should have executed any such deed at all when her husband was on the spot to convey his own property.

But the strangest fact of all was that the attesting witness to this

extraordinary instrument was H. Huffman Browne! It also appeared to have been recorded _at his instance_ eleven years after its execution.

In the meantime, however, that is to say, between the sinking of the

_Geiser_ in '88 and the recording of Mary Petersen's supposed deed in
'99, another _equally mysterious_ deed to the same property had been
filed. This document, executed and recorded in 1896, purported to convey
part of the Petersen property to a man named John J. Keilly, and was
signed by a person calling himself Charles A. Clark. By a later deed,
executed and signed a few days later, John J. Keilly appeared to have
conveyed the same property to Ignatius F. X. O'Rourke, the very person
to whom Mrs. Petersen had apparently executed her deed in 1888. And H.
Huffman Browne was the attesting witness to both these deeds!

A glance at the following diagram will serve to clear up any confusion which may exist in the mind of the reader:

[Sidenote: (Not Recorded until 1899)]

1888 MARY A. PETERSEN 1896 CHARLES A. CLARK

by her (X) deed        conveys _same property_

conveys to             to

I.F.X. O'ROURKE        JOHN J. KEILLY.

|

|                  1896 JOHN J. KEILLY

|                        conveys to

|                        I.F.X. O'ROURKE

|_________________________|

O'ROURKE thus holds land through two sources.

Browne was the witness to both these parallel transactions! Of course it
was simple enough to see what had occurred. In 1896 a mysterious man,
named Clark, without vestige of right or title, so far as the records
showed, had conveyed Ebbe Petersen's property to a man named Keilly,
equally unsubstantial, who had passed it over to one O'Rourke. Then
Browne had suddenly recorded Mrs. Petersen's deed giving O'Rourke the
very same property. Thus this O'Rourke, whoever he may have been, held
all the Petersen property by two chains of title, one through Clark and
Keilly, and the other through Mrs. Petersen. Then he had gone ahead and
deeded it all away to various persons, through one of whom William R.
Hubert had secured his title. But every deed on record which purported
to pass any fraction of the Petersen property was witnessed by H.
Huffman Browne! And Browne was the attesting witness to the deed under
which Hubert purported to hold. Thus the chain of title, at the end of
which Levitan found himself, ran back to Mary Petersen, with H. Huffman
Browne peering behind the arras of every signature.

MARY PETERSEN             CLARK                BROWNE,

to                         to               attesting witness.

O'ROURKE                   KEILLY

|

|

|                    KEILLY               BROWNE,

|                      to               attesting witness.

|                    O'ROURKE

|                      |

|____________________|

O'ROURKE                                BROWNE,

to                                attesting witness.

WILLIAM P. COLLITON

WILLIAM P. COLLITON

to

JOHN GARRETSON

JOHN GARRETSON
  to

HERMAN BOLTE

BROWNE,

attesting witness.

BROWNE,

attesting witness.

HERMAN BOLTE

to                                   BROWNE,

BENJ. FREEMAN                  attesting witness.

BENJ. FREEMAN

to                                   BROWNE,

WILLIAM R. HUBERT               attesting witness.

The Assistant District Attorney rubbed his forehead and wondered who in
thunder all these people were. Who, for example, to begin at the
beginning, was Charles A. Clark, and why should he be deeding away Ebbe
Petersen's property? And who were Keilly and O'Rourke, and all the
rest--Colliton, Garretson, Bolte and Freeman? And who, for that matter,
was Hubert?

A score of detectives were sent out to hunt up these elusive persons,

but, although the directories of twenty years were searched, no Charles

A. Clark, John J. Keilly or I. F. X. O'Rourke could be discovered. Nor could any one named Colliton, Freeman or Hubert be found. The only persons who did appear to exist were Garretson and Bolte.

Quite by chance the Assistant District Attorney located the former of

these, who proved to be one of Browne's clients, and who stated that he
had taken title to the property at the lawyer's request and as a favor
to him, did not remember from whom he had received it, had paid nothing
for it, received nothing for it, and had finally deeded it to Herman
Bolte at the direction of Browne. Herman Bolte, an ex-judge of the
Municipal Court, who had been removed for misconduct in office, admitted
grumblingly that, while at, one time he had considered purchasing the
property in question, he had never actually done so, that the deed from
Garretson to himself had been recorded without his knowledge or his
authority, that he had paid nothing for the property and had received
nothing for it, and had, at the instruction of Browne, conveyed it to
Benjamin Freeman. Garretson apparently had never seen Bolte, and Bolte
had never seen Freeman, while William R. Hubert, the person to whom the
record showed Freeman had transferred the property, remained an
invisible figure, impossible to reduce to tangibility.

Just what Browne had attempted to do--had done--was obvious. In some
way, being a real-estate lawyer, he had stumbled upon the fact that this
valuable tract of land lay unclaimed. Accordingly, he had set about the
easiest way to reduce it to possession. To make assurance doubly sure
he had forged two chains of title, one through an assumed heir and the
other through the owner herself. Then he had juggled the title through a
dozen or so grantees, and stood ready to dispose of the property to the
highest bidder.