The Law and the Lady

W >> Wilkie Collins >> The Law and the Lady

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31

Having produced this salutary counter-impression, the Dean of
Faculty sat down; and the medical witnesses were called next.

Here the evidence was simply irresistible.

Dr. Jerome and Mr. Gale positively swore that the symptoms of the
illness were the symptoms of poisoning by arsenic. The surgeon
who had performed the post-mortem examination followed. He
positively swore that the appearance of the internal organs
proved Doctor Jerome and Mr. Gale to be right in declaring that
their patient had died poisoned. Lastly, to complete this
overwhelming testimony, two analytical chemists actually produced
in Court the arsenic which they had found in the body, in a
quantity admittedly sufficient to have killed two persons instead
of one. In the face of such evidence as this, cross-examination
was a mere form. The first Question raised by the Trial--Did the
Woman Die Poisoned?--was answered in the affirmative, and
answered beyond the possibility of doubt.

The next witnesses called were witnesses concerned with the
question that now followed--the obscure and terrible question,
Who Poisoned Her?

CHAPTER XVII.

SECOND QUESTION--WHO POISONED HER?.

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

On the second day the evidence to be produced by the prosecution
was anticipated with a general feeling of curiosity and interest.
The Court was now to hear what had been seen and done by the
persons officially appointed to verify such cases of suspected
crime as the case which had occurred at Gleninch. The
Procurator-Fiscal--being the person officially appointed to
direct the preliminary investigations of the law--was the first
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
Doctor Jerome, of Edinburgh, and from Mr. Alexander Gale, medical
practitioner, residing in the village or hamlet of Dingdovie,
near Edinburgh. The communication related to the death, under
circumstances of suspicion, of Mrs. Eustace Macallan, at her
husband's house, hard by Dingdovie, called Gleninch. There were
also forwarded to me, inclosed in the document just mentioned,
two reports. One described the results of a postmortem
examination of the deceased lady, and the other stated the
discoveries made after a chemical analysis of certain of the
interior organs of her body. 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
in the house at Gleninch and elsewhere, simply for the purpose of
throwing light on the circumstances which had attended the lady's
death.

"No criminal charge in connection with the death was made at my
office against any person, either in the communication which I
received from the medical men or in any other form. The
investigations at Gleninch and elsewhere, beginning on the
twenty-sixth of October, were not completed until the
twenty-eighth. Upon this latter date--acting on certain
discoveries which were reported to me, and on my own examination
of letters and other documents brought to my office--I made a
criminal charge against the prisoner, and obtained a warrant for
his apprehension. He was examined before the Sheriff on the
twenty-ninth of October, and was committed for trial before this
Court."

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

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

"I got a warrant on the twenty-sixth of October to go to the
country-house near Edinburgh called Gleninch. I took with me
Robert Lorrie, assistant to the Fiscal. We first examined the
room in which Mrs. Eustace Macallan had died. On the bed, and on
a movable table which was attached to it, we found books and
writing materials, and a paper containing some unfinished verses
in manuscript, afterward identified as being in the handwriting
of the deceased. We inclosed these articles in paper, and sealed
them up.

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

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

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

"His illness was described to us as a nervous complaint, caused
by the death of his wife, and by the proceedings which had
followed it. He was reported to be quite incapable of exerting
himself, and quite unfit to see strangers. We insisted
nevertheless (in deference to our instructions) on obtaining
admission to his room. He made no reply when we inquired whether
he had or had not removed anything from the sleeping-room next to
his late wife's, which he usually occupied, to the sleeping-room
in which he now lay. All he did was to close his eyes, as if he
were too feeble to speak to us or to notice us. Without further
disturbing him, we began to examine the room and the different
objects in it.

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

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

"Having locked the door, so as to prevent any further intrusion,
I joined Robert Lorrie in examining the bedside table. It had one
drawer in 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
unlock his drawers. He was so angry that he even declared it was
lucky for us he was too weak to rise from his bed. I answered
civilly that our duty obliged us to examine the drawer, and that
if he still declined to produce the key, he would only oblige us
to take the table away and have the lock opened by a smith.

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

"I opened the door cautiously. Instead of the crippled gentleman,
whom I had expected to see again, there was another stranger
standing outside. The prisoner hailed him as a friend and
neighbor, and eagerly called upon him for protection from us. We
found this second gentleman pleasant enough to deal with. He
informed us readily that he had been sent for by Mr. Dexter, and
that he was himself a lawyer, and he asked to see our warrant.
Having looked at it, he at once informed the prisoner (evidently
very much to the prisoner's surprise) that he must submit to have
the drawer examined, under protest. And then, without more ado,
he got 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 matter of course, we took possession of the letters and the
Diary, and sealed them up, to be given to the Fiscal. At the same
time the gentleman wrote out a protest on the prisoner's behalf,
and handed us his card. The card informed us that he was Mr.
Playmore, now one of the Agents for the prisoner. The card and
the protest were deposited, with the other documents, in the care
of the Fiscal. No other discoveries of any importance were made
at Gleninch.

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

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

Matters grew worse still when the next witnesses were called. The
druggist whose label had been found on the crumpled bit of paper
now appeared on the stand, to make the position of my unhappy
husband more critical than ever.

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

"I keep a special registry book of the poisons sold by me. I
produce the book. On the date therein mentioned the prisoner at
the bar, Mr. Eustace Macallan, came into my shop, and said that
he wished to purchase some arsenic. I asked him what it was
wanted for. He told me it was wanted by his gardener, to be used,
in solution, for the killing of insects in the greenhouse. At the
same time he mentioned his name--Mr. Macallan, of Gleninch. I at
once directed my assistant to put up the arsenic (two ounces of
it), and I made the necessary entry in my book. Mr. Macallan
signed the entry, and I signed it afterward as witness. He paid
for the arsenic, and took it away with him wrapped up in two
papers, the outer wrapper being labeled with my name and address,
and with the word 'Poison' in large letters--exactly like the
label now produced on the piece 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 my register, 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 shop that no one sells poisons but myself.
I asked the prisoner what he wanted the arsenic for. He answered
that he wanted it for killing rats at his house, called Gleninch.
I said, 'Have I the honor of speaking to Mr. Macallan, of
Gleninch?' He said that was his name. I sold him the
arsenic--about an ounce and a half--and labeled the bottle in
which I put it with the word 'Poison' in my own handwriting. He
signed the register, and took the arsenic away with him, after
paying for it."

The cross-examination of the two men succeeded in asserting
certain technical objections to their evidence. But the terrible
fact that my husband himself had actually purchased the arsenic
in both cases remained unshaken.

The next witnesses--the gardener and the cook at Gleninch--wound
the chain 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 any such thing as a solution of arsenic, or ever
allowed the men working under me to use it, in the conservatories
or in the garden at Gleninch. I disapprove of arsenic as a means
of destroying noxious insects infesting 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
destroy rats at any time. No such thing was wanted. I declare, on
my oath, that I never saw any rats in or about the house, or ever
heard of any rats infesting it."

Other household servants at Gleninch gave similar evidence.
Nothing could be extracted from them on cross-examination except
that there might have been rats in the house, though they were
not aware of it. The possession of the poison was traced directly
to my husband, and to no one else. That he had bought it was
actually proved, and that he had kept it was the one conclusion
that the evidence justified.

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

The prisoner's valet deposed that his master had rung for him at
twenty minutes to ten on the morning of the day on which his
mistress died, and had ordered a cup of tea for her. The man had
received the order at the open door of Mrs. Macallan's room, and
could positively swear that no other 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's room. Her master had received it from her at the open
door. She could look in, and could see that he was alone in her
mistress's room.

The nurse, Christina Ormsay, being recalled, repeated what Mrs.
Macallan had said to her on the day when that lady was first
taken ill. She had 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, and gave me my composing draught." This was
at five o'clock in the morning, while Christina Ormsay was asleep
on the sofa. The nurse further swore that she had looked at the
bottle containing the composing mixture, and had seen by the
measuring marks on the bottle that a dose had been poured 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 revealed for 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's room to rights whether the water left in the basin was
of a blackish or bluish color?" The witness answered, "I never
noticed anything of the sort."

The Dean of Faculty went on:

"Did you ever find under the pillow of the bed, or in any other
hiding place in Mrs. Macallan's room, any books or pamphlets
telling of remedies 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 or taken as a medicine, as a good thing to improve the
complexion?" The witness answered, "Never."

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

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

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

The Dean of Faculty answered:

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

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

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

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

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

"I bought the two packets of arsenic, on each occasion at my
wife's own request. On the first occasion she told me the poison
was wanted by the gardener for use in the conservatories. On the
second occasion she said it was required by the cook for ridding
the lower part of the house of rats.

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

"I asked my wife no questions about the use of the arsenic,
feeling no interest in the subject. I never entered the
conservatories for months together; I care little about flowers.
As for the rats, I left the killing of them to the cook and the
other servants, just as I should have left any other part of the
domestic business to the cook and the other 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 a secret of her toilet as that? I implicitly
believed what she told me; viz., that the poison was wanted for
the purposes specified by the gardener and the cook.

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

"Furthermore, I solemnly declare that I know no more of how she
took the arsenic found in her body than the babe unborn. I am
innocent even of the thought of harming that unhappy woman. I
administered the composing draught exactly as I found it in the
bottle. I afterward gave her the cup of tea exactly as I received
it from the under-housemaid's hand. I never had access to the
arsenic after I placed the two packages in my wife's possession.
I am entirely ignorant of what she did with them or of where she
kept them. I declare before God I am innocent of the horrible
crime with which I am charged."

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

So far, I must own, the effect on me of reading the Report was
to depress my spirits and to lower my hopes. The whole weight of
the evidence 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) that Eustace had bought the poison; (2) that the reason which
he had given to the druggists for buying the poison was not the
true reason; (3) that he had had two opportunities of secretly
administering the poison to his wife. On the other side, what had
the Dean of Faculty proved? As yet--nothing. The assertions in
the prisoner's Declaration of his innocence were still, as the
Lord Advocate had remarked, assertions not supported by proof.
Not one atom of evidence had been produced to show that it was
the wife who had secretly used the arsenic, and used it for her
complexion.

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

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

CHAPTER XVIII.

THIRD QUESTION--WHAT WAS HIS MOTIVE?

THE first question (Did the Woman Die Poisoned?) had been
answered, positively. The second question (Who Poisoned Her?) had
been answered, apparently. There now remained the third and final
question--What was His Motive? The first evidence called in
answer to that inquiry was the evidence of relatives and friends
of the dead wife.

Lady Brydehaven, widow of Rear-Admiral Sir George Brydehaven,
examined by Mr. Drew (counsel for the Crown with the Lord
Advocate), gave evidence as follows:

"The deceased lady (Mrs. Eustace Macallan) was my niece. She was
the only child of my sister, and she lived under my roof after
the time of her mother's death. I objected to her marriage, on
grounds which were considered purely fanciful and sentimental by
her other friends. It is extremely painful to me to state the
circumstances in public, but I am ready to make the sacrifice if
the ends of justice require it.

"The prisoner at the bar, at the time of which I am now speaking,
was staying as a guest in my house. He met with an accident while
he was out riding which caused a serious injury to one of his
legs. The leg had been previously hurt while he was serving with
the army in India. This circumstance tended greatly to aggravate
the injury received in the accident. He was confined to a
recumbent position on a sofa for many weeks together; and the
ladies in the house took it in turns to sit with him, and while
away the weary time by reading to him and talking to him. My
niece was foremost among these volunteer nurses. She played
admirably on the piano; and the sick man happened--most
unfortunately, as the event proved--to be fond of music.

"The consequences of the perfectly innocent intercourse thus
begun were deplorable consequences for my niece. She became
passionately attached to Mr. Eustace Macallan, without awakening
any corresponding affection on his side.

"I did my best to interfere, delicately and usefully, while it
was still possible to interfere with advantage. Unhappily, my
niece refused to place any confidence in me. She persistently
denied that she was actuated by any warmer feeling toward Mr.
Macallan than a feeling of friendly interest. This made it
impossible for me to separate them without openly acknowledging
my reason for doing so, and thus producing a scandal which might
have affected my niece's reputation. My husband was alive at that
time; and the one thing I could do under the circumstances was
the thing I did. I requested him to speak privately to Mr.
Macallan, and to appeal to his honor to help us out of the
difficulty without prejudice to my niece.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31