Calamity Town

by Ellery Queen

  But the prosecution’s case proceeded, and despite Judge Martin’s wily obstructions, Bradford established: that Jim alone mixed the cocktails; that Jim was the only one who could have been certain the poisoned cocktail went to Nora, his intended victim, since he handed each drinker his or her cocktail; that Jim pressed Nora to drink when she was reluctant.

  And the testimony of old Wentworth, who had been the attorney for John F.’s father. Wentworth had drawn the dead man’s will. Wentworth testified that on Nora’s marriage she received her grandfather’s bequest of a hundred thousand dollars, held in trust for her until that “happy” event.

  And the testimony of the five handwriting experts, who agreed unanimously, despite the most vigorous cross-examination by Judge Martin, that the three unmailed letters addressed to Rosemary Haight, dated Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s, and announcing far in advance of those dates the “illnesses” of Nora Haight, the third actually announcing her “death”¯agreed unanimously that these damning letters were in the handwriting of the defendant, beyond any doubt whatever. For several days the trial limped and lagged while huge charts were set up in the courtroom and Judge Martin, who had obviously boned up, debated the finer points of handwriting analysis with the experts . . . unsuccessfully.

  Then came Alberta Manaskas, who turned out a staunch defender of the public weal. Alberta evinced an unsuspected volubility. And, to judge from her testimony, her eyes, which had always seemed dull, were sharper than a cosmic ray; and her ears, which had merely seemed large and red, were more sensitive than a photoelectric cell.

  It was through Alberta that Carter Bradford brought out how, as the first letter had predicted, Nora took sick on Thanksgiving Day; how Nora had another, and worse, attack of “sickness” on Christmas Day. Alberta went into clinical detail about these “sicknesses.”

  Judge Martin rose to his opportunity.

  Sickness, Alberta? Now what kind of sickness would you say Miss Nora had on Thanksgiving and Christmas?

  Sick! Like in her belly. (Laughter.)

  Have you ever been sick like in your¯uh¯belly, Alberta?

  Sure! You, me, everyone. (Judge Newbold raps for order.) Like Miss Nora?

  Sure!

  (Gently): You’ve never been poisoned by arsenic, though, have you, Alberta?

  Bradford, on his feet.

  Judge Martin sat down smiling. Mr. Queen noticed the sweat fringing his forehead.

  * * *

  Dr. Milo Willoughby’s testimony, confirmed by the testimony of Coroner Chic Salemson and the testimony of L. D. (“Whitey”) Magill, State Chemist, established that the toxic agent which had made Nora Haight ill, and caused the death of Rosemary Haight, was arsenious acid, or arsenic trioxid, or arsenious oxid, or simply “white arsenic”¯all names for the same deadly substance.

  Henceforth prosecutor and defense counsel referred to it simply as “arsenic.”

  Dr. Magill described the substance as “colorless, tasteless, and odorless in solution and of a high degree of toxicity.”

  Q. (by Prosecutor Bradford)¯It is a powder, Dr. Magill?

  A.¯Yes, sir.

  Q.¯Would it dissolve in a cocktail or lose any of its effectiveness if taken that way?

  A.¯Arsenic trioxid is very slightly soluble in alcohol, but since a cocktail is greatly aqueous, it will dissolve quite readily. It is soluble in water, you see. No, it would lose none of its toxicity in alcohol.

  Q.¯Thank you, Dr. Magill. Your witness, Judge Martin.

  Judge Martin waives cross-examination.

  Prosecutor Bradford calls to the stand Myron Garback, proprietor of the High Village Pharmacy, Wrightsville.

  Mr. Garback has a cold; his nose is red and swollen. He sneezes frequently and fidgets in the witness chair. From the audience Mrs. Garback, a pale Irishwoman, watches her husband anxiously.

  Being duly sworn, Myron Garback testifies that “sometime” during October of 1940¯the previous October¯James Haight had entered the High Village Pharmacy and asked for “a small tin of Quicko.”

  Q.¯What exactly is Quicko, Mr. Garback?

  A.¯It is a preparation used for the extermination of rodents and insect pests.

  Q.¯What is the lethal ingredient of Quicko?

  A.¯Arsenic trioxid. (Sneeze. Laughter. Gavel.)

  Mrs. Garback turns crimson and glares balefully about.

  Q.¯ln highly concentrated form?

  A.¯Yes, sir.

  Q.¯Did you sell the defendant a tin of this poisonous preparation, Mr. Garback?

  A.¯Yes, sir. It is a commercial preparation, requiring no prescription.

  Q.¯Did the defendant ever return to purchase more Quicko?

  A.¯Yes, sir, about two weeks later. He said he’d mislaid the can of stuff, so he’d have to buy a new can. I sold him a new can.

  Q.¯Did the defendant¯I’ll rephrase the question. What did the defendant say to you, and what did you say to the defendant, on the occasion of his first purchase?

  A.¯Mr. Haight said there were mice in his house, and he wanted to kill them off. I said I was surprised, because I’d never heard of house mice up on the Hill. He didn’t say anything to that.

  Cross-examination by Judge Eli Martin:

  Q.¯Mr. Garback, how many tins of Quicko would you estimate you sold during the month of October last?

  A.¯That’s hard to answer. A lot. It’s my best-selling rat-killer, and Low Village is infested.

  Q.¯Twenty-five? Fifty?

  A.¯Somewhere around there.

  Q.¯Then it’s not unusual for customers to buy this poisonous preparation¯purely to kill rats?

  A.¯No, sir, not unusual at all.

  Q.¯Then how is it you remembered that Mr. Haight purchased some¯remembered it for five months?

  A.¯It just stuck in my mind. Maybe because he bought two tins so close together, and it was the Hill.

  Q.¯You’re positive it was two cans, two weeks apart?

  A.¯Yes, sir. I wouldn’t say it if I wasn’t.

  Q.¯No comments, please; just answer the question. Mr. Garback, do you keep records of your Quicko sales, listed by customer?

  A.¯I don’t have to, Judge. It’s legal to sell¯

  Q.~ Answer the question, Mr. Garback. Have you a written record of James Haight’s alleged purchases of Quicko?

  A.¯No, sir, but¯

  Q.¯Then we just have your word, relying on your memory of two incidents you allege to have occurred five months ago, that the defendant purchased Quicko from you?

  Prosecutor Bradford: Your Honor, the witness is under oath. He has answered Counsel’s question not once, but several times. Objection.

  Judge Newbold: It seems to me witness has answered, Judge. Sustained.

  Q.¯That’s all, thank you, Mr. Garback.

  Alberta Manaskas is recalled to the stand. Questioned by Mr. Bradford, she testifies that she “never seen no rats in Miss Nora’s house.” She further testifies that she “never seen no rat-killer, neither.”

  On cross-examination, Judge Martin asks Alberta Manaskas if it is not true that in the tool chest in the cellar of the Haight house there is a large rat trap.

  A.¯Is there?

  Q.¯That’s what I’m asking you, Alberta.

  A.¯I guess there is, at that.

  Q.¯If there are no rats, Alberta, why do you suppose the Haights keep a rat trap?

  Prosecutor Bradford: Objection. Calling for opinion.

  Judge Newbold: Sustained. Counsel, I’ll have to ask you to restrict your cross-examination to¯

  Judge Martin (humbly): Yes, Your Honor.

  * * *

  Emmeline DuPre, under oath, testifies that she is a Dramatic and Dancing Teacher residing at Number 468 Hill Drive, Wrightsville, “right next door to Nora Wright’s house.”

  Witness testifies that during the previous November and December she “happened to overhear” frequent quarrels between Nora and James Haight. The quarrels were about Mr. Haight’s heavy drinking a
nd numerous demands for money. There was one markedly violent quarrel, in December, when Miss DuPre heard Nora Haight refuse to give her husband “any more money.” Did Miss DuPre “happen to overhear” anything to indicate why the defendant needed so much money? A.¯That’s what shocked me so, Mr. Bradford¯Q.¯The Court is not interested in your emotional reactions, Miss DuPre. Answer the question, please.

  A.¯Jim Haight admitted he’d been gambling and losing plenty; and that’s why he needed money, he said.

  Q.¯Was any name or place mentioned by either Mr. or Mrs. Haight in connection with the defendant’s gambling?

  A.¯Jim Haight said he’d been losing a lot at the Hot Spot, that scandalous place on Route 16¯

  Judge Martin: Your Honor, I move that this witness’s entire testimony be stricken out. I have no objection to give-and-take in this trial. Mr. Bradford has been extremely patient with me, and it is an admittedly difficult case, being so vaguely circumstantial¯

  Mr. Bradford: May 1 ask Counsel to restrict his remarks to his objection and stop trying to influence the jury by characterizing the case?

  Judge Newbold: The Prosecutor is right, Counsel. Now what is your objection to this witness’s testimony?

  Judge Martin: No attempt has been made by the People to fix the times and circumstances under which witness allegedly overheard conversations between defendant and wife. Admittedly witness was not present in the same room or even in the same house. How, then, did she “overhear”? How can she be sure the two people were the defendant and his wife? Did she see them? Didn’t she see them? I hold¯Miss DuPre: But I heard all this with my own ears! Judge Newbold: Miss DuPre! Yes, Mr. Bradford? Mr. Bradford: The People have put Miss DuPre on the stand in an effort to spare defendant’s wife the pain of testifying to the quarrels¯Judge Martin: That’s not my point.

  Judge Newbold: No, it is not. Nevertheless, Counsel, I suggest you cover your point in cross-examination. Objection denied. Proceed, Mr. Bradford.

  Mr. Bradford proceeds, eliciting further testimony as to quarrels between Jim and Nora. On cross-examination, Judge Martin reduces Miss DuPre to indignant tears. He brings out her physical position relative to the conversationalists¯crouched by her bedroom window in darkness listening to the voices floating warmly across the driveway between her house and the Haight house¯confuses her in the matter of dates and times involved, so that she clearly contradicts herself several times.

  The spectators enjoy themselves.

  * * *

  Under oath, J. P. Simpson, proprietor of Simpson’s Pawnshop in the Square, Wrightsville, testifies that in November and December last, James Haight pledged various items of jewelry at Simpson’s Pawnshop.

  Q.¯What kind of jewelry, Mr. Simpson?

  A.¯First one was a man’s gold watch¯he took it off his chain to pawn it. Nice merchandise. Fair price¯

  Q.¯Is this the watch?

  A.¯Yes, sir. I remember givin’ him a fair price¯

  Q.¯Placed in evidence.

  Clerk: People’s exhibit thirty-one.

  Q.¯Will you read the inscription on the watch, Mr. Simpson?

  A.-The what? Oh. ”To-Jim-from-Nora.”

  Q.¯What else did the defendant pawn, Mr. Simpson?

  A.¯Gold and platinum rings, a cameo brooch, and so on. All good merchandise. Very good loan merchandise.

  Q.¯Do you recognize these items of jewelry I now show you, Mr. Simpson?

  A.¯Yes, sir. They’re the ones he pawned with me. Gave him mighty fair prices¯

  Q.¯Never mind what you gave him. These last items are all women’s jewelry, are they not?

  A.-That’s right.

  Q.¯Read the various inscriptions. Aloud.

  A.-Wait till I fix my specs. ”N.W.”¯”N.W.”¯”N.W.H.”¯”N.W.”

  Nora’s jewelry is placed in evidence.

  Q.¯One last question, Mr. Simpson. Did the defendant ever redeem any of the objects he pawned with you?

  A.¯No, sir. He just kept bringing me new stuff, one at a time, an’ I kept givin’ him fair prices for ‘em.

  Judge Martin waives cross-examination.

  * * *

  Donald Mackenzie, President of the Wrightsville Personal Finance Corporation, being duly sworn, testifies that James Haight had borrowed considerable sums from the PFC during the last two months of the preceding year.

  Q.¯On what collateral, Mr. Mackenzie?

  A.¯None.

  Q.¯Isn’t this unusual for your firm, Mr. Mackenzie? To lend money without collateral?

  A.¯Well, the PFC has a very liberal loan policy, but of course we usually ask for collateral. Just business, you understand. Only, since Mr. Haight was Vice-President of the Wrightsville National Bank and the son-in-law of John Fowler Wright, the company made an exception in his case and advanced the loans on signature only.

  Q.¯Has the defendant made any payments against his indebtedness, Mr. Mackenzie?

  A.-Well, no.

  Q.¯Has your company made any effort to collect the moneys due, Mr. Mackenzie?

  A.¯Well, yes. Not that we were worried, but¯Well, it was five thousand dollars, and after asking Mr. Haight several times to make his stipulated payments and getting no satisfaction, we¯I finally went to the bank to see Mr. Wright, Mr. Haight’s father-in-law, and explained the situation, and Mr. Wright said he hadn’t known about his son-in-law’s loan, but of course he’d make it good himself, and I wasn’t to say anything about it¯to keep it confidential. I would have, too, only this trial and all¯

  Judge Martin: Objection. Incompetent, irrelevant¯

  Q.¯Never mind that, Mr. Mackenzie. Did John F. Wright repay your company the loan in full?

  A.¯Principal and interest. Yes, sir.

  Q.¯Has the defendant borrowed any money since January the first of this year?

  A.¯No, sir.

  Q.¯Have you had any conversations with the defendant since January the first of this year?

  A.¯Yes. Mr. Haight came in to see me in the middle of January and started to explain why he hadn’t paid anything on his loan¯said he’d made some bad investments¯asked for more time and said he’d surely pay back his debt. I said to him that his father-in-law’d already done that.

  Q.¯What did the defendant say to that?

  A.¯He didn’t say a word. He just walked out of my office.

  Judge Martin cross-examines.

  Q.¯Mr. Mackenzie, didn’t it strike you as strange that the Vice-President of a banking institution like the Wrightsville National Bank, and the son-in-law of the President of that bank, should come to you for a loan?

  A.¯Well, I guess it did. Only I figured it was a confidential matter, you see¯

  Q.¯In a confidential matter, without explanations or collateral, on a mere signature, you still advanced the sum of five thousand dollars?

  A.¯Well, I knew old John F. would make good if¯

  Mr. Bradford: Your Honor¯

  Judge Martin: That’s all, Mr. Mackenzie.

  * * *

  Not all the evidence against Jim Haight came out in the courtroom.

  Some of it came out in Vic Carlatti’s, some in the Hollis Hotel Tonso-rial Parlor, some in Dr. Emil Poffenberger’s dental office in the Upham Block, some in Gus Olesen’s Roadside Tavern, and at least one colorful fact was elicited from the bibulous Mr. Anderson by a New York reporter, the scene of the interview being the pedestal of the Low Village World War Memorial, on which Mr. Anderson happened to be stretched out at the time.

  Emmeline DuPre heard the Luigi Marino story through Tessie Lupin. Miss DuPre was having her permanent done in the Lower Main Beauty Shop where Tessie worked, and Tessie had just had lunch with her husband, Joe, who was one of Luigi Marino’s barbers. Joe had told Tessie, and Tessie had told Emmy DuPre, and Emmy DuPre . . .

  Then the town began to hear the other stories, and old recollections were raked over for black and shining dirt. And when it was all put together, Wrightsville began to say: Now there’s something funny going
on. Do you suppose Frank Lloyd was right about Carter Bradford’s being the Wrights’ friend and all? Why doesn’t he put Luigi and Dr. Poffen-berger on the stand? And Gus Olesen? And the others? Why, this all makes it plain as day that Jim Haight wanted to kill Nora! He threatened her all over town!

  Chief Dakin was tackled by Luigi Marino before court opened one morning when the Chief came in for a quick shave. Joe Lupin listened from the next chair with both hairy ears.

  “Say, Chefe!” said Luigi in great excitement. ”I been lookin’ all over for-a you! I just remember something hot!”

  “Yeah, Luigi? Once over, and take it easy.”

  “Las’ Novemb’. Jim-a Haight, he come in here one day for I should cut-a his hair. I say to Mist’ Haight, ‘Mist’ Haight, I feel-a fine. You know what? I’m-a gonna get hitched!’ Mist’ Haight he say that’s-a good, who’s-a the lucky gal? I say: ‘Francesca Botigliano. I know Francesca from the ol’ countree. She been workin’ by Saint-a Louey, but I propose-a in a lett’ an’ now Francesca she’s-a comin’ to Wrights-a-ville to be Mrs. Marino¯I send-a her the ticket an’ expense-a mon’ myself. Ain’t that something?’ You remember I get-a married, Chefe . . . ”

  “Sure, Luigi. Hey, take it easy!”

  “So what-a does Mist’ Haight say? He say: ‘Luigi, nev’ marry a poor gal! There ain’t-a no per-cent-age in it!’ You see? He marry that-a gal Nora Wright for her mon’! You get-a Mist’ Bradford put me on-a stand. I’ll tell-adat story!”

  Chief Dakin laughed.

  But Wrightsville did not. To Wrightsville it seemed logical that Luigi’s story should be part of the trial testimony. It would show that he married Nora Wright for her money. If a man would marry a woman for her money, he’d poison her for it, too . . . Those ladies of Wrightsville who were so unfortunate as to have lawyers in the family heard a few pointed remarks about “admissible” testimony.

  Dr. Poffenberger had actually gone to Prosecutor Bradford before the trial and offered to testify.

  “Why, Haight came to me last December, Cart, suffering from an abscessed wisdom tooth. I gave him gas, and while he was under the influence of the gas, he kept saying: ‘I’ll get rid of her! I’ll get rid of her!’And then he said: ‘I need that money for myself. I want that money for myself!’ Doesn’t that prove he was planning to kill her and why?”