The Eye of Osiris Page 14

  CHAPTER XIV

  WHICH CARRIES THE READER INTO THE PROBATE COURT

  The Probate Court wore an air of studious repose when I entered withMiss Bellingham and her father. Apparently the great and inquisitivepublic had not become aware of the proceedings that were about to takeplace, or had not realized their connection with the sensational"Mutilation Case"; but barristers and Pressmen, better informed, hadgathered in some strength, and the hum of their conversation filled theair like the droning of the voluntary that ushers in a cathedralservice.

  As we entered, a pleasant-faced, elderly gentleman rose and cameforward to meet us, shaking Mr. Bellingham's hand cordially andsaluting Miss Bellingham with a courtly bow.

  "This is Mr. Marchmont, Doctor," said the former, introducing me; andthe solicitor, having thanked me for the trouble I had taken inattending at the inquest, led us to a bench, at the farther end ofwhich was seated a gentleman whom I recognized as Mr. Hurst.

  Mr. Bellingham recognized him at the same moment and glared at himwrathfully.

  "I see that scoundrel is here!" he exclaimed in a distinctly audiblevoice, "pretending that he doesn't see me, because he is ashamed tolook me in the face, but----"

  "Hush! hush! my dear sir," exclaimed the horrified solicitor; "wemustn't talk like that, especially in this place. Let me beg you--letme entreat you to control your feelings, to make no indiscreet remarks;in fact, to make no remarks at all," he added, with the evidentconviction that any remarks that Mr. Bellingham might make would becertain to be indiscreet.

  "Forgive me, Marchmont," Mr. Bellingham replied contritely. "I willcontrol myself: I will really be quite discreet. I won't even look athim again--because, if I do, I shall probably go over and pull hisnose."

  This form of discretion did not appear to be quite to Mr. Marchmont'sliking, for he took the precaution of insisting that Miss Bellinghamand I should sit on the farther side of his client, and thuseffectually separate him from his enemy.

  "Who's the long-nosed fellow talking to Jellicoe?" Mr. Bellingham asked.

  "That is Mr. Loram, K.C., Mr. Hurst's counsel; and theconvivial-looking gentleman next to him is our counsel, Mr. Heath, amost able man and"--here Mr. Marchmont whispered behind hishand--"fully instructed by Doctor Thorndyke."

  At this juncture the judge entered and took his seat; the usherproceeded with great rapidity to swear in the jury, and the Courtgradually settled down into that state of academic quiet which itmaintained throughout the proceedings, excepting when the noisyswing-doors were set oscillating by some bustling clerk or reporter.

  The judge was a somewhat singular-looking old gentleman, very short asto his face and very long as to his mouth; which peculiarities,together with a pair of large and bulging eyes (which he usually keptclosed), suggested a certain resemblance to a frog. And he had acurious frog-like trick of flattening his eyelids--as if in the act ofswallowing a large beetle--which was the only outward and visible signof emotion that he ever displayed.

  As soon as the swearing in of the jury was completed Mr. Loram rose tointroduce the case; whereupon his lordship leaned back in his chair andclosed his eyes, as if bracing himself for a painful operation.

  "The present proceedings," Mr. Loram explained, "are occasioned by theunaccountable disappearance of Mr. John Bellingham, of 141, QueenSquare, Bloomsbury, which occurred about two years ago, or, to be moreprecise, on the twenty-third of November, nineteen hundred and two.Since that date nothing has been heard of Mr. Bellingham, and, as thereare certain substantial reasons for believing him to be dead, theprincipal beneficiary under his will, Mr. George Hurst, is now applyingto the Court for permission to presume the death of the testator andprove the will. As the time which has elapsed since the testator waslast seen alive is only two years, the application is based upon thecircumstances of the disappearance, which were, in many respects, verysingular, the most remarkable feature of that disappearance being,perhaps, its suddenness and completeness."

  Here the judge remarked in a still, small voice that "It would,perhaps, have been even more remarkable if the testator had disappearedgradually and incompletely."

  "No doubt, my lord," agreed Mr. Loram; "but the point is that thetestator, whose habits had always been regular and orderly, disappearedon the date mentioned without having made any of the usual provisionsfor the conduct of his affairs, and has not since then been seen orheard of."

  With this preamble Mr. Loram proceeded to give a narrative of theevents connected with the disappearance of John Bellingham, which wassubstantially identical with that which I had read in the newspapers;and having laid the actual facts before the jury, he went on to discusstheir probable import.

  "Now, what conclusion," he asked, "will this strange, this mostmysterious train of events suggest to an intelligent person who shallconsider it impartially? Here is a man who steps forth from the houseof his cousin or his brother, as the case may be, and forthwith, in thetwinkling of an eye, vanishes from human ken. What is the explanation?Did he steal forth and, without notice or hint of his intention, taketrain to some seaport, thence to embark for some distant land, leavinghis affairs to take care of themselves and his friends to speculatevainly as to his whereabouts? Is he now hiding abroad, or even athome, indifferent alike to the safety of his own considerable propertyand the peace of mind of his friends? Or is it that death has comeupon him unawares by sickness, by accident, or, more probably, by thehand of some unknown criminal? Let us consider the probabilities.

  "Can he have disappeared by his own deliberate act? Why not? it may beasked. Men undoubtedly do disappear from time to time, to bediscovered by chance or to reappear voluntarily after intervals ofyears and find their names almost forgotten and their places filled bynew-comers. Yes; but there is always some reason for a disappearanceof this kind, even though it be a bad one. Family discords that makelife a weariness; pecuniary difficulties that make life a succession ofanxieties; distaste for particular circumstances and surroundings fromwhich there seems no escape; inherent restlessness and vagabondtendencies, and so on.

  "Do any of these explanations apply to the present case? No, they donot. Family discords--at least those capable of producing chronicmisery--appertain exclusively to a married state. But the testator wasa bachelor with no encumbrances whatever. Pecuniary anxieties can beequally excluded. The testator was in easy, in fact, in affluentcircumstances. His mode of life was apparently agreeable and full ofinterest and activity, and he had full liberty of change if he wished.He had been accustomed to travel, and could do so again withoutabsconding. He had reached an age when radical changes do not seemdesirable. He was a man of fixed and regular habits, and hisregularity was of his own choice and not due to compulsion ornecessity. When last seen by his friends, as I shall prove, he wasproceeding to a definite destination with the expressed intention ofreturning for purposes of his own appointing. He did return and thenvanished, leaving those purposes unachieved.

  "If we conclude that he has voluntarily disappeared and is at presentin hiding, we adopt an opinion that is entirely at variance with allthese weighty facts. If, on the other hand, we conclude that he hasdied suddenly, or has been killed by an accident or otherwise, we areadopting a view that involves no inherent improbabilities and that isentirely congruous with the known facts; facts that will be proved bythe testimony of the witnesses whom I shall call. The supposition thatthe testator is dead is not only more probable than that he is alive; Isubmit it is the only reasonable explanation of the circumstances ofhis disappearance.

  "But this is not all. The presumption of death which arises soinevitably out of the mysterious and abrupt manner in which thetestator disappeared has recently received most conclusive and dreadfulconfirmation. On the fifteenth of July last there were discovered atSidcup the remains of a human arm--a left arm, gentlemen, from the handof which the third, or ring, finger was missing. The doctor who hasexamined that arm will tell you that the finger was cut off eitherafter death or immediat
ely before; and his evidence will proveconclusively that that arm must have been deposited in the place whereit was found just about the time when the testator disappeared. Sincethat first discovery, other portions of the same mutilated body havecome to light; and it is a strange and significant fact that they haveall been found in the immediate neighborhood of Eltham or Woodford.You will remember, gentlemen, that it was either at Eltham or Woodfordthat the testator was last seen alive.

  "And now observe the completeness of the coincidence. These humanremains, as you will be told presently by the experienced and learnedmedical gentleman who has examined them most exhaustively, are those ofa man of about sixty years of age, about five feet eight inches inheight, fairly muscular and well preserved, apparently healthy, andrather stoutly built. Another witness will tell you that the missingman was about sixty years of age, about five feet eight inches inheight, fairly muscular and well preserved, apparently healthy, andrather stoutly built. And--another most significant and strikingfact--the testator was accustomed to wear upon the third finger of hisleft hand--the very finger that is missing from the remains that werefound--a most peculiar ring, which fitted so tightly that he was unableto get it off after once putting it on; a ring, gentlemen, of sopeculiar a pattern that had it been found on the body must haveinstantly established the identity of the remains. In a word,gentlemen, the remains which have been found are those of a man exactlylike the testator; they differ from him in no respects whatever; theydisplay a mutilation which suggests an attempt to conceal anidentifying peculiarity which he undoubtedly presented; and they weredeposited in their various hiding-places about the time of thetestator's disappearance. Accordingly, when you have heard these factsproved by the sworn testimony of competent witnesses, together with thefacts relating to the disappearance, I shall ask you for a verdict inaccordance with that evidence."

  Mr. Loram sat down, and adjusting a pair of pince-nez, rapidly glancedover his brief while the usher was administering the oath to the firstwitness.

  This was Mr. Jellicoe, who stepped into the box and directed a stonygaze at the (apparently) unconscious judge. The usual preliminarieshaving been gone through, Mr. Loram proceeded to examine him.

  "You were the testator's solicitor and confidential agent, I believe?"

  "I was--and am."

  "How long have you known him?"

  "Twenty-seven years."

  "Judging from your experience of him, should you say that he was aperson likely to disappear voluntarily and suddenly to cease tocommunicate with his friends?"

  "No."

  "Kindly give your reasons for that opinion."

  "Such conduct on the part of the testator would be entirely opposed tohis habits and character as they are known to me. He was exceedinglyregular and business-like in his dealings with me. When travelingabroad he always kept me informed as to his whereabouts, or, if he waslikely to be beyond reach of communication, he always advised mebeforehand. One of my duties was to collect a pension which he drewfrom the Foreign Office, and on no occasion, previous to hisdisappearance, has he ever failed to furnish me punctually with thenecessary documents."

  "Had he, so far as you know, any reasons for wishing to disappear?"

  "No."

  "When and where did you last see him alive?"

  "At six o'clock in the evening, on the fourteenth of October, nineteenhundred and two, at 141, Queen Square, Bloomsbury."

  "Kindly tell us what happened on that occasion."

  "The testator had called for me at my office at a quarter past three,and asked me to come with him to his house to meet Doctor Norbury. Iaccompanied him to 141, Queen Square, and shortly after we arrivedDoctor Norbury came to look at some antiquities that the testatorproposed to give to the British Museum. The gift consisted of a mummywith four Canopic jars and other tomb-furniture which the testatorstipulated should be exhibited together in a single case and in thestate in which they were then presented. Of these objects, the mummyonly was ready for inspection. The tomb-furniture had not yet arrivedin England, but was expected within a week. Doctor Norbury acceptedthe gift on behalf of the Museum, but could not take possession of theobjects until he had communicated with the Director and obtained hisformal authority. The testator accordingly gave me certaininstructions concerning the delivery of the gift, as he was leavingEngland that evening."

  "Are those instructions relevant to the subject of this inquiry?"

  "I think they are. The testator was going to Paris, and perhaps fromthence to Vienna. He instructed me to receive and unpack thetomb-furniture on its arrival, and to store it, with the mummy, in aparticular room, where it was to remain for three weeks. If hereturned within that time he was to hand it over in person to theMuseum authorities; if he had not returned within that time, he desiredme to notify the Museum authorities that they were at liberty to takepossession of and remove the collection at their convenience. Fromthese instructions I gathered that the testator was uncertain as to thelength of his absence from England and the extent of his journey."

  "Did he state precisely where he was going?"

  "No. He said he was going to Paris and perhaps to Vienna, but he gaveno particulars and I asked for none."

  "Do you, in fact, know where he went?"

  "No. He left the house at six o'clock wearing a long, heavy overcoatand carrying a suit-case and an umbrella. I wished him 'Good-by' atthe door and watched him walk away as if going toward Southampton Row.I have no idea where he went, and I never saw him again."

  "Had he no other luggage than the suit-case?"

  "I do not know, but I believe not. He was accustomed to travel withthe bare necessaries, and to buy anything further he wanted _en route_."

  "Did he say nothing to the servants as to the probable date of hisreturn?"

  "There were no servants excepting the caretaker. The house was notused for residential purposes. The testator slept and took his mealsat his club, though he kept his clothes at the house."

  "Did you receive any communication from him after he left?"

  "No. I never heard from him again in any way. I waited for threeweeks as he had instructed me, and then notified the Museum authoritiesthat the collection was ready for removal. Five days later DoctorNorbury came and took formal possession of it, and it was transferredto the Museum forthwith."

  "When did you next hear of the testator?"

  "On the twenty-third of November following at a quarter-past seven inthe evening. Mr. George Hurst came to my rooms, which are over myoffice, and informed me that the testator had called at his houseduring his absence and had been shown into the study to wait for him.That on his--Mr. Hurst's--arrival it was found that the testator haddisappeared without acquainting the servants of his intended departure,and without being seen by anyone to leave the house. Mr. Hurst thoughtthis so remarkable that he had hastened up to town to inform me. Ialso thought it a remarkable circumstance, especially as I had receivedno communication from the testator, and we both decided that it wasadvisable to inform the testator's brother, Godfrey, of what hadhappened.

  "Accordingly Mr. Hurst and I proceeded as quickly as possible toLiverpool Street and took the first train available to Woodford, whereMr. Godfrey Bellingham then resided. We arrived at his house at fiveminutes to nine, and were informed by the servant that he was not athome, but that his daughter was in the library, which was a detachedbuilding situated in the grounds. The servant lighted a lantern andconducted us through the grounds to the library, where we found Mr.Godfrey Bellingham and Miss Bellingham. Mr. Godfrey had only just comein and had entered by the back gate, which had a bell that rang in thelibrary. Mr. Hurst informed Mr. Godfrey of what had occurred, and thenwe left the library to walk up to the house. A few paces from thelibrary I noticed by the light of the lantern, which Mr. Godfrey wascarrying, a small object lying on the lawn. I pointed it out to himand he picked it up, and then we all recognized it as a scarab that thetestator was accustomed to wear on his watch-c
hain. It was fitted witha gold wire passed through the suspension hole and a gold ring. Boththe wire and the ring were in position, but the ring was broken. Wewent to the house and questioned the servants as to visitors; but noneof them had seen the testator, and they all agreed that no visitorwhatsoever had come to the house during the afternoon or evening. Mr.Godfrey and Miss Bellingham both declared that they had neither seennor heard anything of the testator, and were both unaware that he hadreturned to England. As the circumstances were somewhat disquieting, Icommunicated, on the following morning, with the police and requestedthem to make inquiries; which they did, with the result that asuit-case bearing the initials 'J. B.', was found to be lying unclaimedin the cloakroom at Charing Cross Station. I was able to identify thesuit-case as that which I had seen the testator carry away from QueenSquare. I was also able to identify some of the contents. Iinterviewed the cloakroom attendant, who informed me that the suit-casehad been deposited on the twenty-third about 4:15 p.m. He had norecollection of the person who deposited it. It remained unclaimed inthe possession of the railway company for three months, and was thensurrendered to me."

  "Were there any marks or labels on it showing the route by which it hadtraveled?"

  "There were no labels on it and no marks other than the initials 'J.B.'"

  "Do you happen to know the testator's age?"

  "Yes. He was fifty-nine on the eleventh of October, nineteen hundredand two."

  "Can you tell us what his height was?"

  "Yes. He was exactly five feet eight inches."

  "What sort of health had he?"

  "So far as I know his health was good. I am not aware that he sufferedfrom any disease. I am only judging by his appearance, which was thatof a healthy man."

  "Should you describe him as well preserved or otherwise?"

  "I should describe him as a well preserved man for his age."

  "How should you describe his figure?"

  "I should describe him as rather broad and stout in build, and fairlymuscular, though not exceptionally so."

  Mr. Loram made a rapid note of these answers and then said:

  "You have told us, Mr. Jellicoe, that you have known the testatorintimately for twenty-seven years. Now, did you ever notice whether hewas accustomed to wear any rings upon his fingers?"

  "He wore upon the third finger of his left hand a copy of an antiquering which bore the device of the Eye of Osiris. That was the onlyring he ever wore as far as I know."

  "Did he wear it constantly?"

  "Yes, necessarily; because it was too small for him, and having oncesqueezed it on he was never able to get it off again."

  This was the sum of Mr. Jellicoe's evidence, and at its conclusion thewitness glanced inquiringly at Mr. Bellingham's counsel. But Mr. Heathremained seated, attentively considering the notes that he had justmade, and finding that there was to be no cross-examination, Mr.Jellicoe stepped down from the box. I leaned back on my bench, and,turning my head, observed Miss Bellingham deep in thought.

  "What do you think of it?" I asked.

  "It seems very complete and conclusive," she replied. And then, with asigh, she murmured: "Poor old Uncle John! How horrid it sounds to talkof him in this cold-blooded, business-like way, as 'the testator,' asif he were nothing but a sort of algebraical sign."

  "There isn't much room for sentiment, I suppose, in the proceedings ofthe Probate Court," I replied. To which she assented, and then asked:"Who is this lady?"

  "This lady" was a fashionably dressed young woman who had just bouncedinto the witness-box and was now being sworn. The preliminaries beingfinished, she answered Miss Bellingham's question and Mr. Loram's bystating that her name was Augustina Gwendoline Dobbs, and that she washousemaid to Mr. George Hurst, of "The Poplars," Eltham.

  "Mr. Hurst lives alone, I believe?" said Mr. Loram.

  "I don't know what you mean by that," Miss Dobbs began; but thebarrister explained:

  "I mean that I believe he is unmarried?"

  "Well, and what about it?" the witness demanded tartly.

  "I am asking you a question."

  "I know that," said the witness viciously; "and I say that you've nobusiness to make any such insinuations to a respectable young lady whenthere's a cook-housekeeper and a kitchenmaid living in the house, andhim old enough to be my father----"

  Here his lordship flattened his eyelids with startling effect, and Mr.Loram interrupted: "I make no insinuations. I merely ask, Is youremployer, Mr. Hurst, an unmarried man, or is he not?"

  "I never asked him," said the witness sulkily.

  "Please answer my question--yes or no."

  "How can I answer your question? He may be married or he may not. Howdo I know? I'm no private detective."

  Mr. Loram directed a stupefied gaze at the witness, and in the ensuingsilence a plaintiff [Transcriber's note: plaintive?] voice came fromthe bench:

  "Is that point material?"

  "Certainly, my lord," replied Mr. Loram.

  "Then, as I see that you are calling Mr. Hurst, perhaps you had betterput the question to him. He will probably know."

  Mr. Loram bowed, and as the Judge subsided into his normal state ofcoma he turned to the triumphant witness.

  "Do you remember anything remarkable occurring on the twenty-third ofNovember the year before last?"

  "Yes. Mr. John Bellingham called at our house."

  "How did you know he was Mr. John Bellingham?"

  "I didn't; but he said he was, and I supposed he knew."

  "At what time did he arrive?"

  "At twenty minutes past five in the evening."

  "What happened then?"

  "I told him that Mr. Hurst had not come home yet, and he said he wouldwait for him in the study and write some letters; so I showed him intothe study and shut the door."

  "What happened next?"

  "Nothing. Then Mr. Hurst came home at his usual time--a quarter tosix--and let himself in with his key. He went straight into the studywhere I supposed Mr. Bellingham still was, so I took no notice, butlaid the table for two. At six o'clock Mr. Hurst came into thedining-room--he has tea in the City and dines at six--and when he sawthe table laid for two he asked the reason. I said I thought Mr.Bellingham was staying to dinner.

  "'Mr. Bellingham!' says he. 'I didn't know he was here. Why didn'tyou tell me?' he says. 'I thought he was with you, sir,' I said. 'Ishowed him into the study,' I said. 'Well, he wasn't there when I camein,' he said, 'and he isn't there now,' he said. 'Perhaps he has goneto wait in the drawing-room,' he said. So he went and looked in thedrawing-room, but he wasn't there. Then Mr. Hurst said he thought Mr.Bellingham must have got tired of waiting and gone away; but I told himI was quite sure he hadn't, because I had been watching all the time.Then he asked me if Mr. Bellingham was alone or whether his daughterwas with him, and I said that it wasn't Mr. Bellingham at all, but Mr.John Bellingham, and then he was more surprised than ever. I said wehad better search the house to make sure whether he was there or not,and Mr. Hurst said he would come with me; so we all went over the houseand looked in all the rooms, but there was not a sign of Mr. Bellinghamin any of them. Then Mr. Hurst got very nervous and upset, and when hehad just snatched a little dinner he ran off to catch the sixthirty-one train up to town."

  "You say that Mr. Bellingham could not have left the house because youwere watching all the time. Where were you while you were watching?"

  "I was in the kitchen. I could see the front gate from the kitchenwindow."

  "You say that you laid the table for two. Where did you lay it?"

  "In the dining-room, of course."

  "Could you see the front gate from the dining-room?"

  "No, but I could see the study door. The study is opposite thedining-room."

  "Do you have to come upstairs to get from the kitchen to thedining-room?"

  "Yes, of course you do!"

  "Then, might not Mr. Bellingham have left the house while you w
erecoming up the stairs?"

  "No, he couldn't have done."

  "Why not?"

  "Because it would have been impossible."

  "But why would it have been impossible?"

  "Because he couldn't have done it."

  "I suggest that Mr. Bellingham left the house quietly while you were onthe stairs?"

  "No, he didn't."

  "How do you know he did not?"

  "I am quite sure he didn't."

  "But how can you be certain?"

  "Because I should have seen him if he had."

  "But I mean when you were on the stairs."

  "He was in the study when I was on the stairs."

  "How do you know he was in the study?"

  "Because I showed him in there and he hadn't come out."

  Mr. Loram paused and took a deep breath, and his lordship flattened hiseyelids.

  "Is there a side gate to the premises?" the barrister resumed wearily.

  "Yes. It opens into a narrow lane at the side of the house."

  "And there is a French window in the study, is there not?"

  "Yes. It opens on to the small grass plot opposite the side gate."

  "The window and the gate both have catches on the [Transcriber's note:possibly missing words: 'inside. Could it'] have been possible for Mr.Bellingham to let himself out into the lane?"

  "The window and gate both have catches on the inside. He could havegot out that way, but, of course he didn't."

  "Why not?"

  "Well, no gentleman would go creeping out the back way like a thief."

  "Did you look to see if the French window was shut and fastened afteryou missed Mr. Bellingham?"

  "I looked at it when we shut the house up for the night. It was thenshut and fastened on the inside."

  "And the side gate?"

  "That gate was shut and latched. You have to slam the gate to make thelatch fasten, so no one could have gone out of the gate without beingheard."

  Here the examination-in-chief ended, and Mr. Loram sat down with anaudible sigh of relief. Miss Dobbs was about to step down from thewitness-box when Mr. Heath rose to cross-examine.

  "Did you see Mr. Bellingham in a good light?" he asked.

  "Pretty good. It was dark outside, but the hall-lamp was alight."

  "Kindly look at this"--here a small object was passed across to thewitness. "It is a trinket that Mr. Bellingham is stated to havecarried suspended from his watch-guard. Can you remember if he waswearing it in that manner when he came to the house?"

  "No, he was not."

  "You are sure of that."

  "Quite sure."

  "Thank you. And now I want to ask you about the search that you havementioned. You say that you went all over the house. Did you go intothe study?"

  "No--at least, not until Mr. Hurst had gone to London."

  "When you did go in, was the window fastened?"

  "Yes."

  "Could it have been fastened from the outside?"

  "No; there is no handle outside."

  "What furniture is there in the study?"

  "There is a writing-table, a revolving-chair, two easy chairs, twolarge book-cases, and a wardrobe that Mr. Hurst keeps his overcoats andhats in."

  "Does the wardrobe lock?"

  "Yes."

  "Was it locked when you went in?"

  "I'm sure I don't know. I don't go about trying the cupboards anddrawers."

  "What furniture is there in the drawing-room?"

  "A cabinet, six or seven chairs, a Chesterfield sofa, a piano, asilver-table, and one or two occasional tables."

  "Is the piano a grand or upright?"

  "It is an upright grand."

  "In what position is it placed?"

  "It stands across a corner near the window."

  "Is there sufficient room behind it for a man to conceal himself?"

  Miss Dobbs was amused and did not dissemble. "Oh, yes," she sniggered,"there's plenty of room for a man to hide behind it."

  "When you searched the drawing-room, did you look behind the piano?"

  "No, I didn't," Miss Dobbs replied scornfully.

  "Did you look under the sofa?"

  "Certainly not!"

  "What did you do then?"

  "We opened the door and looked into the room. We were not looking fora cat or a monkey; we were looking for a middle-aged gentleman."

  "And am I to take it that your search over the rest of the house wasconducted in a similar manner?"

  "Certainly. We looked into the rooms, but we did not search under thebeds or in the cupboards."

  "Are all the rooms in the house in use as living or sleeping rooms?"

  "No; there is one room on the second floor that is used as a store andlumber-room, and one on the first floor that Mr. Hurst uses to storetrunks and things that he is not using."

  "Did you look in those rooms when you searched the house?"

  "No."

  "Have you looked in them since?"

  "I have been in the lumber-room since, but not in the other. It isalways kept locked."

  At this point an ominous flattening became apparent in his lordship'seyelids, but these symptoms passed when Mr. Heath sat down andindicated that he had no further questions to ask.

  Miss Dobbs once more prepared to step down from the witness box, whenMr. Loram shot up like a jack-in-the-box.

  "You have made certain statements," said he, "concerning the scarabwhich Mr. Bellingham was accustomed to wear suspended from hiswatch-guard. You say that he was not wearing it when he came to Mr.Hurst's house on the twenty-third of November, nineteen hundred andtwo. Are you quite sure of that?"

  "Quite sure."

  "I must ask you to be very careful in your statement on this point.The question is a highly important one. Do you swear that the scarabwas not hanging from his watch-guard?"

  "Yes, I do."

  "Did you notice the watch-guard particularly?"

  "No; not particularly."

  "Then what makes you sure that the scarab was not attached to it?"

  "It couldn't have been."

  "Why could it not?"

  "Because if it had been there I should have seen it."

  "What kind of watch-guard was Mr. Bellingham wearing?"

  "Oh, an ordinary sort of watch-guard."

  "I mean was it a chain or a ribbon or a strap?"

  "A chain, I think--or perhaps a ribbon--or it might have been a strap."

  His lordship flattened his eyelids, but made no further sign and Mr.Loram continued:

  "Did you or did you not notice what kind of watch-guard Mr. Bellinghamwas wearing?"

  "I did not. Why should I? It was no business of mine."

  "But yet you are quite sure about the scarab?"

  "Yes, quite sure."

  "You noticed that, then?"

  "No, I didn't. How could I when it wasn't there?"

  Mr. Loram paused and looked helplessly at the witness; a suppressedtitter arose from the body of the Court, and a faint voice from thebench inquired:

  "Are you _quite_ incapable of giving a straightforward answer?"

  Miss Dobbs' only reply was to burst into tears; whereupon Mr. Loramabruptly sat down and abandoned his re-examination.

  The witness-box vacated by Miss Dobbs was occupied successively by Dr.Norbury, Mr. Hurst and the cloak-room attendant, none of whomcontributed any new facts, but merely corroborated the statements madeby Mr. Jellicoe and the housemaid. Then came the laborer whodiscovered the bones at Sidcup, and who repeated the evidence that hehad given at the inquest, showing that the remains could not have beenlying in the watercress-bed more than two years. Finally Dr. Summerswas called, and, after he had given a brief description of the bonesthat he had examined, was asked by Mr. Loram:

  "You have heard the description that Mr. Jellicoe has given of thetestator?"

  "I have."

  "Does that description apply to the person whose remains you examined."
/>
  "In a general way it does."

  "I must ask you for a direct answer--yes or no. Does it apply?"

  "Yes. But I ought to say that my estimate of the height of thedeceased is only approximate."

  "Quite so. Judging from your examination of those remains and from Mr.Jellicoe's description, might those remains be the remains of thetestator, John Bellingham?"

  "Yes, they might."

  On receiving this admission Mr. Loram sat down, and Mr. Heathimmediately rose to cross-examine.

  "When you examined these remains, Doctor Summers, did you discover anypersonal peculiarities which would enable you to identify them as theremains of any one individual rather than any other individual ofsimilar size, age, and proportions?"

  "No. I found nothing that would identify the remains as those of anyparticular individual."

  As Mr. Heath asked no further questions, the witness received hisdismissal, and Mr. Loram informed the Court that that was his case.The judge bowed somnolently, and then Mr. Heath rose to address theCourt on behalf of the respondent. It was not a long speech, nor wasit enriched by any displays of florid rhetoric; it concerned itselfexclusively with a rebutment of the arguments of the counsel for thepetitioner.

  Having briefly pointed out that the period of absence was too short togive rise of itself to the presumption of death, Mr. Heath continued:

  "The claim therefore rests upon evidence of a positive character. Mylearned friend asserts that the testator is presumably dead, and it isfor him to prove what he has affirmed. Now, has he done this? Isubmit that he has not. He has argued with great force and ingenuitythat the testator, being a bachelor, a solitary man without wife orchild, dependant or master, public or private office of duty, or anybond, responsibility, or any other condition limiting his freedom ofaction, had no reason or inducement for absconding. This is my learnedfriend's argument, and he has conducted it with so much skill andingenuity that he has not only succeeded in proving his case; he hasproved a great deal too much. For if it is true, as my learned friendso justly argues, that a man thus unfettered by obligations of any kindhas no reason for disappearing, is it not even more true that he has noreason for not disappearing? My friend has urged that the testator wasat liberty to go where he pleased, when he pleased, and how he pleased;and that therefore there was no need for him to abscond. I reply, ifhe was at liberty to go away, whither, when, and how he pleased, why dowe express surprise that he has made use of his liberty? My learnedfriend points out that the testator notified nobody of his intention ofgoing away and has acquainted no one with his whereabouts; but, I ask,whom should he have notified? He was responsible to nobody; there wasno one dependent upon him; his presence or absence was the concern ofnobody but himself. If circumstances suddenly arising made itdesirable that he should go abroad, why should he not go? I say therewas no reason whatever.

  "My learned friend has said that the testator went away leaving hisaffairs to take care of themselves. Now, gentlemen, I ask you if thiscan fairly be said of a man whose affairs are, as they have been formany years, in the hands of a highly capable, completely trustworthyagent who is better acquainted with them than the testator himself?Clearly it cannot.

  "To conclude this part of the argument: I submit that the circumstancesof the so-called disappearance of the testator present nothing out ofthe ordinary. The testator is a man of ample means, without anyresponsibilities to fetter his movements, and has been in the constanthabit of traveling, often into remote and distant regions. The merefact that he has been absent somewhat longer than usual affords noground whatever for the drastic proceeding of presumption of death andtaking possession of his property.

  "With reference to the human remains which have been mentioned inconnection with the case I need say but little. The attempt to connectthem with the testator has failed completely. You yourselves haveheard Doctor Summers state on oath that they cannot be identified asthe remains of any particular person. That would seem to dispose ofthem effectually. I must remark upon a very singular point that hasbeen raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is this:

  "My learned friend points out that these remains were discovered nearEltham and near Woodford and that the testator was last seen alive atone of these two places. This he considers for some reason to be ahighly significant fact. But I cannot agree with him. If the testatorhad been last seen alive at Woodford and the remains had been found atWoodford, or if he had disappeared from Eltham, and the remains hadbeen found at Eltham, that would have had some significance. But hecan only have been last seen at one of the places, whereas the remainshave been found at both places. Here again my learned friend seems tohave proved too much.

  "But I need not occupy your time further. I repeat that, in order tojustify us in presuming the death of the testator, clear and positiveevidence would be necessary. That no such evidence has been broughtforward. Accordingly, seeing that the testator may return at any timeand is entitled to find his property intact, I shall ask you for averdict that will secure to him this measure of ordinary justice."

  At the conclusion of Mr. Heath's speech the judge, as if awakening froma refreshing nap, opened his eyes; and uncommonly shrewd, intelligenteyes they were when the expressive eyelids were duly tucked up out ofthe way. He commenced by reading over a part of the will and certainnotes--which he appeared to have made in some miraculous fashion withhis eyes shut--and then proceeded to review the evidence and thecounsels' arguments for the instruction of the jury.

  "Before considering the evidence which you have heard, gentlemen," hesaid, "it will be well for me to say a few words to you on the generalaspects of the case which is occupying our attention.

  "If a person goes abroad or disappears from his home and his ordinaryplaces of resort and is absent for a long period of time, thepresumption of death arises at the expiration of seven years from thedate on which he was last heard of. That is to say, that the totaldisappearance of an individual for seven years constitutes presumptiveevidence that the said individual is dead; and the presumption can beset aside only by the production of evidence that he was alive at sometime within that period of seven years. But if, on the other hand, itis sought to presume the death of a person who has been absent for ashorter period than seven years, it is necessary to produce suchevidence as shall make it highly probable that the said person is dead.Of course, presumption implies supposition as opposed to actualdemonstration; but, nevertheless, the evidence in such a case must beof a kind that tends to create a very strong belief that death hasoccurred; and I need hardly say that the shorter the period of absence,the more convincing must be the evidence.

  "In the present case, the testator, John Bellingham, has been absentsomewhat under two years. This is a relatively short period, and initself gives rise to no presumption of death. Nevertheless, death hasbeen presumed in a case where the period of absence was even shorterand the insurance recovered; but here the evidence supporting thebelief in the occurrence of death was exceedingly weighty.

  "The testator in this case was a shipmaster, and his disappearance wasaccompanied by the disappearance of the ship and the entire ship'scompany in the course of a voyage from London to Marseilles. The lossof the ship and her crew was the only reasonable explanation of thedisappearance, and, short of actual demonstration, the facts offeredconvincing evidence of the death of all persons on board. I mentionthis case as an illustration. You are not dealing with speculativeprobabilities. You are contemplating a very momentous proceeding, andyou must be very sure of your ground. Consider what it is that you areasked to do.

  "The petitioner asks permission to presume the death of the testator inorder that the testator's property may be distributed among thebeneficiaries under the will. The granting of such permission involvesus in the gravest responsibility. An ill-considered decision might beproductive of a serious injustice to the testator, an injustice thatcould never be remedied. Hence it is incumbent upon you to weigh
theevidence with the greatest care, to come to no decision without theprofoundest consideration of all the facts.

  "The evidence that you have heard divides itself into two parts--thatrelating to the circumstances of the testator's disappearance, and thatrelating to certain human remains. In connection with the latter I canonly express my surprise and regret that the application was notpostponed until the completion of the coroner's inquest, and leave youto consider the evidence. You will bear in mind that Doctor Summershas stated explicitly that the remains cannot be identified as those ofany particular individual, but that the testator and the unknowndeceased had so many points of resemblance that they might possibly beone and the same person.

  "With reference to the circumstances of the disappearance, you haveheard the evidence of Mr. Jellicoe to the effect that the testator hason no previous occasion gone abroad without informing him as to hisproposed destination. But in considering what weight you are to giveto this statement you will bear in mind that when the testator set outfor Paris after his interview with Doctor Norbury he left Mr. Jellicoewithout any information as to his specific destination, his address inParis, or the precise date when he should return, and that Mr. Jellicoewas unable to tell us where the testator went or what was his business.Mr. Jellicoe was, in fact, for a time without any means of tracing thetestator or ascertaining his whereabouts.

  "The evidence of the housemaid, Dobbs, and of Mr. Hurst is ratherconfusing. It appears that the testator came to the house, and whenlooked for later was not to be found. A search of the premises showedthat he was not in the house, whence it seems to follow that he musthave left it; but since no one was informed of his intention to leave,and he had expressed the intention of staying to see Mr. Hurst, hisconduct in thus going away surreptitiously must appear somewhateccentric. The point that you have to consider, therefore, is whethera person who is capable of thus departing in a surreptitious andeccentric manner from a house, without giving notice to the servants,is capable also of departing in a surreptitious and eccentric mannerfrom his usual places of resort without giving notice to his friends orthereafter informing them of his whereabouts.

  "The questions, then, gentlemen, that you have to ask yourselves beforedeciding on your verdict are two: first, Are the circumstances of thetestator's disappearance and his continued absence incongruous with hishabits and personal peculiarities as they are known to you? and second,Are there any facts which indicate in a positive manner that thetestator is dead? Ask yourselves these questions, gentlemen, and theanswers to them, furnished by the evidence that you have heard, willguide you to your decision."

  Having delivered himself of the above instructions, the judge appliedhimself to the perusal of the will with professional gusto, in whichoccupation he was presently disturbed by the announcement of theforeman of the jury that a verdict had been agreed upon.

  The judge sat up and glanced at the jury-box, and when the foremanproceeded to state that "We find no sufficient reason for presuming thetestator, John Bellingham, to be dead," he nodded approvingly.Evidently that was his opinion, too, as he was careful to explain whenhe conveyed to Mr. Loram the refusal of the Court to grant thepermission applied for.

  The decision was a great relief to me, and also, I think, to MissBellingham; but most of all to her father, who, with instinctive goodmanners, since he could not suppress a smile of triumph, rose andhastily stumped out of the Court, so that the discomfited Hurst shouldnot see him. His daughter and I followed, and as we left the Court sheremarked, with a smile:

  "So our pauperism is not, after all, made absolute. There is still achance for us in the Chapter of Accidents--and perhaps even for poorold Uncle John."