The Law and the Lady

by Wilkie Collins

  CHAPTER XVII. SECOND QUESTION--WHO POISONED HER?

  THE evidence of the doctors and the chemists closed the proceedings onthe first day of the Trial.

  On the second day the evidence to be produced by the prosecution wasanticipated with a general feeling of curiosity and interest. The Courtwas now to hear what had been seen and done by the persons officiallyappointed to verify such cases of suspected crime as the case which hadoccurred at Gleninch. The Procurator-Fiscal--being the person officiallyappointed to direct the preliminary investigations of the law--was thefirst witness called on the second day of the Trial.

  Examined by the Lord Advocate, the Fiscal gave his evidence, as follows:

  "On the twenty-sixth of October I received a communication from DoctorJerome, of Edinburgh, and from Mr. Alexander Gale, medical practitioner,residing in the village or hamlet of Dingdovie, near Edinburgh. Thecommunication related to the death, under circumstances of suspicion, ofMrs. Eustace Macallan, at her husband's house, hard by Dingdovie, calledGleninch. There were also forwarded to me, inclosed in the documentjust mentioned, two reports. One described the results of a postmortemexamination of the deceased lady, and the other stated the discoveriesmade after a chemical analysis of certain of the interior organs of herbody. The result in both instances proved to demonstration that Mrs.Eustace Macallan had died of poisoning by arsenic.

  "Under these circumstances, I set in motion a search and inquiry inthe house at Gleninch and elsewhere, simply for the purpose of throwinglight on the circumstances which had attended the lady's death.

  "No criminal charge in connection with the death was made at my officeagainst any person, either in the communication which I received fromthe medical men or in any other form. The investigations at Gleninch andelsewhere, beginning on the twenty-sixth of October, were not completeduntil the twenty-eighth. Upon this latter date--acting on certaindiscoveries which were reported to me, and on my own examination ofletters and other documents brought to my office--I made a criminalcharge against the prisoner, and obtained a warrant for hisapprehension. He was examined before the Sheriff on the twenty-ninth ofOctober, and was committed for trial before this Court."

  The Fiscal having made his statement, and having been cross-examined (ontechnical matters only), the persons employed in his office were callednext. These men had a story of startling interest to tell. Theirs werethe fatal discoveries which had justified the Fiscal in charging myhusband with the murder of his wife. The first of the witnesses was asheriff's officer. He gave his name as Isaiah Schoolcraft.

  Examined by Mr. Drew--Advocate-Depute, and counsel for the Crown, withthe Lord Advocate--Isaiah Schoolcraft said:

  "I got a warrant on the twenty-sixth of October to go to thecountry-house near Edinburgh called Gleninch. I took with me RobertLorrie, assistant to the Fiscal. We first examined the room in whichMrs. Eustace Macallan had died. On the bed, and on a movable table whichwas attached to it, we found books and writing materials, and a papercontaining some unfinished verses in manuscript, afterward identified asbeing in the handwriting of the deceased. We inclosed these articles inpaper, and sealed them up.

  "We next opened an Indian cabinet in the bedroom. Here we found manymore verses on many more sheets of paper in the same hand-writing. Wealso discovered, first some letters, and next a crumpled piece of paperthrown aside in a corner of one of the shelves. On closer examination, achemist's printed label was discovered on this morsel of paper. We alsofound in the folds of it a few scattered grains of some white powder.The paper and the letters were carefully inclosed, and sealed up asbefore.

  "Further investigation of the room revealed nothing which could throwany light on the purpose of our inquiry. We examined the clothes,jewelry, and books of the deceased. These we left under lock and key. Wealso found her dressing-case, which we protected by seals, and took awaywith us to the Fiscal's office, along with all the other articles thatwe had discovered in the room.

  "The next day we continued our examination in the house, having receivedin the interval fresh instructions from the Fiscal. We began our work inthe bedroom communicating with the room in which Mrs. Macallan haddied. It had been kept locked since the death. Finding nothing of anyimportance here, we went next to another room on the same floor, inwhich we were informed the prisoner was then lying ill in bed.

  "His illness was described to us as a nervous complaint, caused by thedeath of his wife, and by the proceedings which had followed it. He wasreported to be quite incapable of exerting himself, and quite unfitto see strangers. We insisted nevertheless (in deference to ourinstructions) on obtaining admission to his room. He made no replywhen we inquired whether he had or had not removed anything from thesleeping-room next to his late wife's, which he usually occupied, to thesleeping-room in which he now lay. All he did was to close his eyes, asif he were too feeble to speak to us or to notice us. Without furtherdisturbing him, we began to examine the room and the different objectsin it.

  "While we were so employed, we were interrupted by a strange sound. Welikened it to the rumbling of wheels in the corridor outside.

  "The door opened, and there came swiftly in a gentleman--acripple--wheeling himself along in a chair. He wheeled his chairstraight up to a little table which stood by the prisoner's bedside, andsaid something to him in a whisper too low to be overheard. The prisoneropened his eyes, and quickly answered by a sign. We informed thecrippled gentleman, quite respectfully, that we could not allow him tobe in the room at this time. He appeared to think nothing of what wesaid. He only answered, 'My name is Dexter. I am one of Mr. Macallan'sold friends. It is you who are intruding here--not I.' We again notifiedto him that he must leave the room; and we pointed out particularly thathe had got his chair in such a position against the bedside table asto prevent us from examining it. He only laughed. 'Can't you see foryourselves,' he said, 'that it is a table, and nothing more?' In replyto this we warned him that we were acting under a legal warrant, andthat he might get into trouble if he obstructed us in the executionof our duty. Finding there was no moving him by fair means, I took hischair and pulled it away, while Robert Lorrie laid hold of the tableand carried it to the other end of the room. The crippled gentleman flewinto a furious rage with me for presuming to touch his chair. 'My chairis Me,' he said: 'how dare you lay hands on Me?' I first opened thedoor, and then, by way of accommodating him, gave the chair a good pushbehind with my stick instead of my hand, and so sent it and him safelyand swiftly out of the room.

  "Having locked the door, so as to prevent any further intrusion, Ijoined Robert Lorrie in examining the bedside table. It had one drawerin it, and that drawer we found secured.

  "We asked the prisoner for the key.

  "He flatly refused to give it to us, and said we had no right to unlockhis drawers. He was so angry that he even declared it was lucky for ushe was too weak to rise from his bed. I answered civilly that our dutyobliged us to examine the drawer, and that if he still declined toproduce the key, he would only oblige us to take the table away and havethe lock opened by a smith.

  "While we were still disputing there was a knock at the door of theroom.

  "I opened the door cautiously. Instead of the crippled gentleman, whom Ihad expected to see again, there was another stranger standing outside.The prisoner hailed him as a friend and neighbor, and eagerly calledupon him for protection from us. We found this second gentleman pleasantenough to deal with. He informed us readily that he had been sent forby Mr. Dexter, and that he was himself a lawyer, and he asked to seeour warrant. Having looked at it, he at once informed the prisoner(evidently very much to the prisoner's surprise) that he must submit tohave the drawer examined, under protest. And then, without more ado, hegot the key, and opened the table drawer for us himself.

  "We found inside several letters, and a large book with a lock to it,having the words 'My Diary' inscribed on it in gilt letters. As a matterof course, we took possession of the letters and the Diary, and sealedthem up, to be given to the Fi
scal. At the same time the gentleman wroteout a protest on the prisoner's behalf, and handed us his card. Thecard informed us that he was Mr. Playmore, now one of the Agents forthe prisoner. The card and the protest were deposited, with the otherdocuments, in the care of the Fiscal. No other discoveries of anyimportance were made at Gleninch.

  "Our next inquiries took us to Edinburgh--to the druggist whose labelwe had found on the crumpled morsel of paper, and to other druggistslikewise whom we were instructed to question. On the twenty-eighth ofOctober the Fiscal was in possession of all the information that wecould collect, and our duties for the time being came to an end."

  This concluded the evidence of Schoolcraft and Lorrie. It was not shakenon cross-examination, and it was plainly unfavorable to the prisoner.

  Matters grew worse still when the next witnesses were called. Thedruggist whose label had been found on the crumpled bit of paper nowappeared on the stand, to make the position of my unhappy husband morecritical than ever.

  Andrew Kinlay, druggist, of Edinburgh, deposed as follows:

  "I keep a special registry book of the poisons sold by me. I produce thebook. On the date therein mentioned the prisoner at the bar, Mr. EustaceMacallan, came into my shop, and said that he wished to purchase somearsenic. I asked him what it was wanted for. He told me it was wanted byhis gardener, to be used, in solution, for the killing of insects inthe greenhouse. At the same time he mentioned his name--Mr. Macallan,of Gleninch. I at once directed my assistant to put up the arsenic (twoounces of it), and I made the necessary entry in my book. Mr. Macallansigned the entry, and I signed it afterward as witness. He paid for thearsenic, and took it away with him wrapped up in two papers, the outerwrapper being labeled with my name and address, and with the word'Poison' in large letters--exactly like the label now produced on thepiece of paper found at Gleninch."

  The next witness, Peter Stockdale (also a druggist of Edinburgh),followed, and said:

  "The prisoner at the bar called at my shop on the date indicated on myregister, some days later than the date indicated in the register of Mr.Kinlay. He wished to purchase sixpenny-worth of arsenic. My assistant,to whom he had addressed himself, called me. It is a rule in my shopthat no one sells poisons but myself. I asked the prisoner what hewanted the arsenic for. He answered that he wanted it for killing ratsat his house, called Gleninch. I said, 'Have I the honor of speaking toMr. Macallan, of Gleninch?' He said that was his name. I sold him thearsenic--about an ounce and a half--and labeled the bottle in whichI put it with the word 'Poison' in my own handwriting. He signed theregister, and took the arsenic away with him, after paying for it."

  The cross-examination of the two men succeeded in asserting certaintechnical objections to their evidence. But the terrible fact thatmy husband himself had actually purchased the arsenic in both casesremained unshaken.

  The next witnesses--the gardener and the cook at Gleninch--wound thechain of hostile evidence around the prisoner more mercilessly still.

  On examination the gardener said, on his oath:

  "I never received any arsenic from the prisoner, or from any one else,at the date to which you refer, of at any other date. I never used anysuch thing as a solution of arsenic, or ever allowed the men workingunder me to use it, in the conservatories or in the garden at Gleninch.I disapprove of arsenic as a means of destroying noxious insectsinfesting flowers and plants."

  The cook, being called next, spoke as positively as the gardener:

  "Neither my master nor any other person gave me any arsenic to destroyrats at any time. No such thing was wanted. I declare, on my oath, thatI never saw any rats in or about the house, or ever heard of any ratsinfesting it."

  Other household servants at Gleninch gave similar evidence. Nothingcould be extracted from them on cross-examination except that theremight have been rats in the house, though they were not aware of it. Thepossession of the poison was traced directly to my husband, and to noone else. That he had bought it was actually proved, and that he hadkept it was the one conclusion that the evidence justified.

  The witnesses who came next did their best to press the charge againstthe prisoner home to him. Having the arsenic in his possession, whathad he done with it? The evidence led the jury to infer what he had donewith it.

  The prisoner's valet deposed that his master had rung for him at twentyminutes to ten on the morning of the day on which his mistress died, andhad ordered a cup of tea for her. The man had received the order at theopen door of Mrs. Macallan's room, and could positively swear that noother person but his master was there at the time.

  The under-housemaid, appearing next, said that she had made the tea,and had herself taken it upstairs before ten o'clock to Mrs. Macallan'sroom. Her master had received it from her at the open door. She couldlook in, and could see that he was alone in her mistress's room.

  The nurse, Christina Ormsay, being recalled, repeated what Mrs. Macallanhad said to her on the day when that lady was first taken ill. Shehad said (speaking to the nurse at six o'clock in the morning), "Mr.Macallan came in about an hour since; he found me still sleepless, andgave me my composing draught." This was at five o'clock in the morning,while Christina Ormsay was asleep on the sofa. The nurse further sworethat she had looked at the bottle containing the composing mixture,and had seen by the measuring marks on the bottle that a dose had beenpoured out since the dose previously given, administered by herself.

  On this occasion special interest was excited by the cross-examination.The closing questions put to the under-housemaid and the nurse revealedfor the first time what the nature of the defense was to be.

  Cross-examining the under-housemaid, the Dean of Faculty said:

  "Did you ever notice when you were setting Mrs. Eustace Macallan'sroom to rights whether the water left in the basin was of a blackish orbluish color?" The witness answered, "I never noticed anything of thesort."

  The Dean of Faculty went on:

  "Did you ever find under the pillow of the bed, or in any other hidingplace in Mrs. Macallan's room, any books or pamphlets telling ofremedies used for improving a bad complexion?" The witness answered,"No."

  The Dean of Faculty persisted:

  "Did you ever hear Mrs. Macallan speak of arsenic, taken as a wash ortaken as a medicine, as a good thing to improve the complexion?" Thewitness answered, "Never."

  Similar questions were next put to the nurse, and were all answered bythis witness also in the negative.

  Here, then, in spite of the negative answers, was the plan of thedefense made dimly visible for the first time to the jury and to theaudience. By way of preventing the possibility of a mistake in soserious a matter, the Chief Judge (the Lord Justice Clerk) put thisplain question, when the witnesses had retired, to the Counsel for thedefense:

  "The Court and the jury," said his lordship, "wish distinctly tounderstand the object of your cross-examination of the housemaid and thenurse. Is it the theory of the defense that Mrs. Eustace Macallan usedthe arsenic which--her husband purchased for the purpose of improvingthe defects of her complexion?"

  The Dean of Faculty answered:

  "That is what we say, my lord, and what we propose to prove as thefoundation of the defense. We cannot dispute the medical evidence whichdeclares that Mrs. Macallan died poisoned. But we assert that she diedof an overdose of arsenic, ignorantly taken, in the privacy of her ownroom, as a remedy for the defects--the proved and admitted defects--ofher complexion. The prisoner's Declaration before the Sheriff expresslysets forth that he purchased the arsenic at the request of his wife."

  The Lord Justice Clerk inquired upon this if there were any objection onthe part of either of the learned counsel to have the Declaration readin Court before the Trial proceeded further.

  To this the Dean of Faculty replied that he would be glad to have theDeclaration read. If he might use the expression, it would usefully pavethe way in the minds of the jury for the defense which he had to submitto them.

  The Lord Advocate (speaking on the
other side) was happy to be ableto accommodate his learned brother in this matter. So long as the mereassertions which the Declaration contained were not supported by proof,he looked upon that document as evidence for the prosecution, and he toowas quite willing to have it read.

  Thereupon the prisoner's Declaration of his innocence--on being charged before the Sheriff with the murder of his wife--was read, in thefollowing terms:

  "I bought the two packets of arsenic, on each occasion at my wife's ownrequest. On the first occasion she told me the poison was wanted by thegardener for use in the conservatories. On the second occasion she saidit was required by the cook for ridding the lower part of the house ofrats.

  "I handed both packets of arsenic to my wife immediately on my returnhome. I had nothing to do with the poison after buying it. My wife wasthe person who gave orders to the gardener and cook--not I. I never heldany communication with either of them.

  "I asked my wife no questions about the use of the arsenic, feeling nointerest in the subject. I never entered the conservatories for monthstogether; I care little about flowers. As for the rats, I left thekilling of them to the cook and the other servants, just as I shouldhave left any other part of the domestic business to the cook and theother servants.

  "My wife never told me she wanted the arsenic to improve her complexion.Surely I should be the last person admitted to the knowledge of such asecret of her toilet as that? I implicitly believed what she told me;viz., that the poison was wanted for the purposes specified by thegardener and the cook.

  "I assert positively that I lived on friendly terms with my wife,allowing, of course, for the little occasional disagreements andmisunderstandings of married life. Any sense of disappointment inconnection with my marriage which I might have felt privately Iconceived it to be my duty as a husband and a gentleman to conceal frommy wife. I was not only shocked and grieved by her untimely death--Iwas filled with fear that I had not, with all my care, behavedaffectionately enough to her in her lifetime.

  "Furthermore, I solemnly declare that I know no more of how she took thearsenic found in her body than the babe unborn. I am innocent even ofthe thought of harming that unhappy woman. I administered the composingdraught exactly as I found it in the bottle. I afterward gave her thecup of tea exactly as I received it from the under-housemaid's hand. Inever had access to the arsenic after I placed the two packages in mywife's possession. I am entirely ignorant of what she did with themor of where she kept them. I declare before God I am innocent of thehorrible crime with which I am charged."

  With the reading of those true and touching words the proceedings on thesecond day of the Trial came to an end.

  So far, I must own, the effect on me of reading the Report was todepress my spirits and to lower my hopes. The whole weight of theevidence at the close of the second day was against my unhappy husband.Woman as I was, and partisan as I was, I could plainly see that.

  The merciless Lord Advocate (I confess I hated him!) had proved (1) thatEustace had bought the poison; (2) that the reason which he had given tothe druggists for buying the poison was not the true reason; (3) thathe had had two opportunities of secretly administering the poison tohis wife. On the other side, what had the Dean of Faculty proved?As yet--nothing. The assertions in the prisoner's Declaration of hisinnocence were still, as the Lord Advocate had remarked, assertions notsupported by proof. Not one atom of evidence had been produced to showthat it was the wife who had secretly used the arsenic, and used it forher complexion.

  My one consolation was that the reading of the Trial had alreadyrevealed to me the helpful figures of two friends on whose sympathy Imight surely rely. The crippled Mr. Dexter had especially shown himselfto be a thorough good ally of my husband's. My heart warmed to theman who had moved his chair against the bedside table--the man who hadstruggled to the last to defend Eustace's papers from the wretches whohad seized them. I decided then and there that the first person to whomI would confide my aspirations and my hopes should be Mr. Dexter. If hefelt any difficulty about advising me, I would then apply next to theagent, Mr. Playmore--the second good friend, who had formally protestedagainst the seizure of my husband's papers.

  Fortified by this resolution, I turned the page, and read the history ofthe third day of the Trial.