"But I am perfectly willing to answer the question," Madeline said eagerly. "I have never had in my possession any Liquor Arsenicalis or any other preparation of arsenic."
"That answers your question, Sir," said the coroner, as he wrote down the answer, "and if you have nothing more to ask, we can release the witness."
He handed his pen to Madeline, and when she had signed her depositions—a terribly shaky signature it must have been—she came back to her chair, still very pale and agitated, but obviously relieved at having got through the ordeal. I had taken her arm as she sat down and was complimenting her on the really admirable way in which she had given her evidence, when I heard the name of Anthony Wallingford called and realized that another unpleasant episode had arrived.
6. THE VERDICT
I had not been taking much notice of Wallingford, my attention being occupied with the two women when it strayed from the proceedings. Beyond an irritated consciousness of his usual restless movements, I had no information as to how the soul-shaking incidents of this appalling day were affecting him. But when he rose drunkenly and, grasping the back of his chair, rolled his eyes wildly round the Court, I realized that there were breakers ahead.
When I say that he rose drunkenly, I use the word advisedly. Familiar as I was with his peculiarities—his jerkings, twitchings and grimacings—I saw, at once, that there was something unusual both in his face and in his bearing; a dull wildness of expression and an uncertainty of movement that I had never observed before. He had not come to the Court with the rest of us, preferring, for some reason, to come alone. And I now suspected that he had taken the opportunity to fortify himself on the way.
I was not the only observer of his condition. As he walked, with deliberate care, from his seat to the table, I noticed the coroner eyeing him critically and the jury exchanging dubious glances and whispered comments. He made a bad start by dropping the book on the floor and sniggering nervously as he stooped to pick it up; and I could see plainly, by the stiffness of the coroner's manner that he had made an unfavourable impression before he began his evidence.
"You were secretary to the deceased?" said the coroner, when the witness had stated his name, age (33) and occupation. "What was the nature of your duties?"
"The ordinary duties of a secretary," was the dogged reply.
"Will you kindly give us particulars of what you did for deceased?"
"I opened his business letters and answered them and some of his private ones. And I kept his accounts and paid his bills."
"What accounts would those be? Deceased was not in business, I understand?"
"No, they were his domestic accounts; his income from investments and rents and his expenditure."
"Did you attend upon deceased personally; I mean in the way of looking after his bodily comfort and supplying his needs?"
"I used to look in on him from time to time to see if he wanted anything done. But it wasn't my business to wait on him. I was his secretary, not his valet."
"Who did wait on him, and attend to his wants?"
"The housemaid, chiefly, and Miss Norris, and of course, Mrs. Monkhouse. But he didn't usually want much but his food, his medicine, a few books from the library and a supply of candles for his lamp. His bell-push was connected with a bell in my room at night, but he never rang it."
"Then, practically, the housemaid did everything for him?"
"Not everything. Miss Norris cooked most of his meals, we all used to give him his medicine, I used to put out his books and keep his fountain pen filled, and Mrs. Monkhouse kept his candle-box; supplied. That was what he was most particular about as he slept badly and used to read at night."
"You give us the impression, Mr. Wallingford," the coroner said, drily, "that you must have had a good deal of leisure."
"Then I have given you the wrong impression. I was kept constantly on the go, doing jobs, paying tradesmen, shopping and running errands."
"For whom?"
"Everybody. Deceased, Mrs. Monkhouse, Miss Norris and even Dr. Dimsdale. I was everybody's servant."
"What did you do for Mrs. Monkhouse?"
"I don't see what that has got to do with this inquest?"
"That is not for you to decide," the coroner said, sternly. "You will be good enough to answer my question."
Wallingford winced as if he had had his ears cuffed. In a moment, his insolence evaporated and I could see his hands shaking as he, evidently, cudgelled his brains for a reply. Suddenly he seemed to have struck an idea.
"Shopping of various kinds," said he; "for instance, there were the candles for deceased. His lamp was of German make and English lamp-candles wouldn't fit it. So I used to have to go to a German shop at Sparrow Corner by the Tower, to get packets of Schneider's stearine candles. That took about half a day."
The coroner, stolidly and without comment, wrote down the answer, but my experience as a counsel told me that it had been a dummy question, asked to distract the witness's attention and cover a more significant one that was to follow. For that question I waited expectantly, and when it came my surmise was confirmed.
"And Dr. Dimsdale? What did you have to do for him?"
"I used to help him with his books sometimes when he hadn't got a dispenser. I am a pretty good accountant and he isn't."
"Where does Dr. Dimsdale do his bookkeeping?"
"At the desk in the surgery."
"And is that where you used to work?"
"Yes."
"Used Dr. Dimsdale to work with you or did you do the books by yourself?"
"I usually worked by myself."
"At what time in the day used you to work there?"
"In the afternoon, as a rule."
"At what hours does Dr. Dimsdale visit his patients?"
"Most of the day. He goes out about ten and finishes about six or seven."
"So that you would usually be alone in the surgery?"
"Yes, usually."
As the coroner wrote down the answer I noticed the super-intelligent juryman fidgeting in his seat. At length he burst out: "Is the poison cupboard in the surgery?"
The coroner looked interrogatively at Wallingford, who stared at him blankly in sudden confusion.
"You heard the question? Is the poison cupboard there?"
"I don't know. It may be. It wasn't any business of mine."
"Is there any cupboard in the surgery? You must know that."
"Yes, there is a cupboard there, but I don't know what is in it."
"Did you never see it open?"
"No. Never."
"And you never had the curiosity to look into it?"
"Of course I didn't. Besides I couldn't. It was locked."
"Was it always locked when you were there?"
"Yes, always."
"Are you certain of that?"
"Yes, perfectly certain."
Here the super-intelligent juror looked as if he were about to spring across the table as he demanded eagerly: "How does the witness know that that cupboard was locked?"
The coroner looked slightly annoyed. He had been playing his fish carefully and was in no wise helped by this rude jerk of the line. Nevertheless, he laid down his pen and looked expectantly at the witness. As for Wallingford, he was struck speechless. Apparently his rather muddled brain had suddenly taken in the import of the question, for he stood with dropped jaw and damp, pallid face, staring at the juryman in utter consternation.
"Well," said the coroner, after an interval, "how did you know that it was locked?"
Wallingford pulled himself together by an effort and replied: "Why, I knew—I knew, of course, that it must be locked."
"Yes; but the question is, how did you know?"
"Why it stands to reason that it must have been locked."
"Why does it stand to reason? Cupboards are not always locked."
"Poison cupboards are. Besides, you heard Dimsdale say that he always kept this cupboard locked. He showed you the key."
&nbs
p; Once more the coroner, having noted the answer, laid down his pen and looked steadily at the witness.
"Now, Mr. Wallingford," said he, "I must caution you to be careful as to what you say. This is a serious matter, and you are giving evidence on oath. You said just now that you did not know whether the poison cupboard was or was not in the surgery. You said that you did not know what was in that cupboard. Now you say that you knew the cupboard must have been locked because it was the poison cupboard. Then it seems that you did know that it was the poison cupboard. Isn't that so?"
"No. I didn't know then. I do now because I heard Dimsdale say that it was."
"Then, you said that you were perfectly certain that the cupboard was always locked whenever you were working there. That meant that you knew positively, as a fact, that it was locked. Now you say that you knew that it must be locked. But that is an assumption, an opinion, a belief. Now, a man of your education must know the difference between a mere belief and actual knowledge. Will you, please, answer definitely: Did you, or did you not, know as a fact whether that cupboard was or was not locked?"
"Well, I didn't actually know, but I took it for granted that it was locked."
"You did not try the door?"
"Certainly not. Why should I?"
"Very well. Does any gentleman of the jury wish to ask any further questions about this cupboard?"
There was a brief silence. Then the foreman said: "We should like the witness to say what he means and not keep contradicting himself."
"You hear that, Sir," said the coroner. "Please be more careful in your answers in future. Now, I want to ask you about that last bottle of medicine. Did you notice anything unusual in its appearance?"
"No. I didn't notice it at all. I didn't know that it had come."
"Did you go into deceased's room on that day—the Wednesday?"
"Yes, I went to see deceased in the morning about ten o'clock and gave him a dose of his medicine; and I looked in on him in the evening about nine o'clock to see if he wanted anything, but he didn't."
"Did you give him any medicine then?"
"No. It was not due for another hour."
"What was his condition then?"
"He looked about the same as usual. He seemed inclined to doze, so I did not stay long."
"Is that the last time you saw him alive?"
"No. I looked in again just before eleven. He was then in much the same state—rather drowsy—and, at his request, I turned out the gas and left him."
"Did you light the candle?"
"No, he always did that himself, if he wanted it."
"Did you give him any medicine?"
"No. He had just had a dose."
"Did he tell you that he had?"
"No. I could see that there was a dose gone."
"From which bottle was that?"
"There was only one bottle there. It must have been the new bottle, as only one dose had been taken."
"What colour was the medicine?"
Wallingford hesitated a moment or two as if suspecting a trap. Then he replied, doggedly: "I don't know. I told you I didn't notice it."
"You said that you didn't notice it at all and didn't know that it had come. Now you say that you observed that only one dose had been taken from it and that you inferred that it was the new bottle. Which of those statements is the true one?"
"They are both true," Wallingford protested in a whining tone. "I meant that I didn't notice the medicine particularly and that I didn't know when it came."
"That is not what you said," the coroner rejoined. "However, we will let that pass. Is there anything more that you wish to ask this witness, gentlemen? If not, we will release him and take the evidence of Mr. Mayfield."
I think the jury would have liked to bait Wallingford but apparently could not think of any suitable questions. But they watched him malevolently as he added his—probably quite illegible—signature to his depositions and followed him with their eyes as he tottered shakily back to his seat. Immediately afterwards my name was called and I took my place at the table, not without a slight degree of nervousness; for, though I was well enough used to examinations, it was in the capacity of examiner, not of witness, and I was fully alive to the possibility of certain pitfalls which the coroner might, if he were wide enough awake, dig for me. However, when I had been sworn and had given my particulars (Rupert Mayfield, 35, Barrister-at-Law, of No. 64 Fig Tree Court, Inner Temple) the coroner's conciliatory manner led me to hope that it would be all plain sailing.
"How long have you known deceased?" was the first question.
"About two and a half years," I replied.
"You are one of the executors of his will, Mrs. Monkhouse has told us."
"Yes."
"Do you know why you were appointed executor after so short an acquaintance?"
"I am an old friend of Mrs. Monkhouse. I have known her since she was a little girl. I was a friend of her father—or rather, her stepfather."
"Was it by her wish that you were made executor?"
"I believe that the suggestion came from the deceased's family solicitor, Mr. Brodribb, who is my co-executor. But probably he was influenced by my long acquaintance with Mrs. Monkhouse."
"Has probate been applied for?"
"Yes."
"Then there can be no objections to your disclosing the provisions of the will. We don't want to hear them in detail, but I will ask you to give us a general idea of the disposal of deceased's property."
"The gross value of the estate is about fifty-five thousand pounds, of which twelve thousand represents real property and forty-three thousand personal. The principal beneficiaries are: Mrs. Monkhouse, who receives a house valued at four thousand pounds and twenty thousand pounds in money and securities; the Reverend Amos Monkhouse, land of the value of five thousand and ten thousand invested money; Madeline Norris, a house and land valued at three thousand and five thousand in securities; Anthony Wallingford, four thousand pounds. Then there are legacies of a thousand pounds each to the two executors, and of three hundred, two hundred and one hundred respectively to the housemaid, the cook and the kitchen-maid. That accounts for the bulk of the estate. Mrs. Monkhouse is the residuary legatee."
The coroner wrote down the answer as I gave it and then read it out slowly for me to confirm, working out, at the same time, a little sum on a spare piece of paper—as did also the intellectual juryman.
"I think that gives us all the information we want," the former remarked, glancing at the jury; and as none of them made any comment, he proceeded: "Did you see much of deceased during the last few months?"
"I saw him usually once or twice a week. Sometimes oftener. But I did not spend much time with him. He was a solitary, bookish man who preferred to be alone most of his time."
"Did you take particular notice of his state of health?"
"No, but I did observe that his health seemed to grow rather worse lately."
"Did it appear to you that he received such care and attention as a man in his condition ought to have received?"
"It did not appear to me that he was neglected."
'Did you realize how seriously ill he was?"
"No. I am afraid not. I regarded him merely as a chronic invalid."
"It never occurred to you that he ought to have had a regular nurse?"
"No, and I do not think he would have consented. He greatly disliked having anyone about his room."
"Is there anything within your knowledge that would throw any light on the circumstances of his death?"
"No. Nothing."
"Have you ever known arsenic in any form to be used in that household for any purpose; any fly-papers, weed-killer or insecticides, for instance?"
"No, I do not remember ever having seen anything used in that household which, to my knowledge or belief, contained arsenic."
"Do you know of any fact or circumstance which, in your opinion, ought to be communicated to this Court or which might help the jury i
n arriving at their verdict?"
"No, I do not."
This brought my examination to an end. I was succeeded by the cook and the kitchenmaid, but, as they had little to tell, and that little entirely negative, their examination was quite brief. When the last witness was dismissed, the coroner addressed the jury.
"We have now, gentlemen," said he, "heard all the evidence that is at present available, and we have the choice of two courses; which are, either to adjourn the inquiry until further evidence is available, or to find a verdict on the evidence which we have heard. I incline strongly to the latter plan. We are now in a position to answer the questions, how, when and where the deceased came by his death, and when we have done that, we shall have discharged our proper function. What is your feeling on the matter, gentlemen?"
The jury's feeling was very obviously that they wished to get the inquiry over and go about their business, and when they had made this clear, the coroner proceeded to sum up.
"I shall not detain you, gentlemen, with a long address. All that is necessary is for me to recapitulate the evidence very briefly and point out the bearing of it.
"First as to the cause of death. It has been given in evidence by two fully qualified and expert witnesses that deceased died from the effects of poisoning by arsenic. That is a matter of fact which is not disputed and which you must accept, unless you have any reasons for rejecting their testimony, which I feel sure you have not. Accepting the fact of death by poison, the question then arises as to how the poison came to be taken by deceased. There are three possibilities: he may have taken it himself, voluntarily and knowingly; he may have taken it by accident or mischance; or it may have been administered to him knowingly and maliciously by some other person or persons. Let us consider those three possibilities.
"The suggestion that deceased might have taken the poison voluntarily is highly improbable in three respects. First, since deceased was mostly bed-ridden, it would have been almost impossible for him to have obtained the poison. Second, there is the nature of the poison. Arsenic has often been used for homicidal poisoning but seldom for suicide; for an excellent reason. The properties of arsenic which commend it to poisoners—its complete freedom from taste and the indefinite symptoms that it produces—do not commend it to the suicide. He has no need to conceal either the administration or its results. His principal need is rapidity of effect. But arsenic is a relatively slow poison and one which usually causes great suffering. It is not at all suited to the suicide. Then there is the third objection that the mode of administration was quite unlike that of a suicide. For the latter usually takes his poison in one large dose, to get the business over; but here it was evidently given in repeated small doses over a period that may have been anything from a week to a year. And, finally, there is not a particle of evidence in favour of the supposition that deceased took the poison himself.
Dr. Thorndyke Omnibus Vol 5 Page 7
