A PRÉCIS OF THE CASE.
A MONTH ago had anyone prophesied that I, Spenser Tait, would be engaged
in playing the part of an amateur detective, I should have flatly
contradicted his prognostication. Yet here I am doing my best to solve
the mystery which hangs round the death of my friend's father. I cannot
say that I object to the task, for there is something tremendously
exciting in this man hunt. My friendship for Claude is the principal
factor which induces me to meddle with the business; but a slight
flavoring of selfishness is also present.
Hitherto we had been fairly successful, and have at least found a clew
likely to lead to some certain result. Between Mrs. Bezel, Hilliston,
and Linton's book, we have learned a good deal of the case; and all our
knowledge points to an interview with Jenny Paynton as the next step to
be taken.
To-morrow we start for Thorston for this purpose, but before exploring
the new field I judge it wise to set down all the facts which have come
to our knowledge, and to deduce therefrom, if possible, a logical reason
for our future actions. I have my suspicions, but these are vague and
intangible. Claude has his suspicions, but these do not coincide with
mine. He believes Jeringham to be guilty of the crime. I think Hilliston
is likely to prove the assassin. Both of us may be wrong.
To take the case of Mr. Hilliston. His attitude is decidedly aggressive
at the present moment, and he is doing his best to dissuade Claude from
investigating the case. Why should he do so? George Larcher was his
dearest friend, and met with a cruel fate. If there is any chance of his
fate being avenged, surely Hilliston should be the first to prosecute
the inquiries. Instead of doing so he hangs back, and throws cold water
on my efforts and on Claude's. He must have some reason for his actions.
Is that reason to be found at Clarence Cottage in Hampstead?
This question brings me to a delicate point. My work is hampered by the
fact that Mrs. Bezel is Claude's mother, and I dare not express myself
as I should wish. I gather from the report of the trial that Mrs.
Larcher was a vain and silly coquette, who threw away the love of a good
man for the indulgence of her own selfish instincts. Guilty she may have
been, but not with Jeringham. If she had any lover, it was Francis
Hilliston. After a visit to Clarence Cottage I believe the view taken of
the case by the novelist to be the right one.
During my interview with Mrs. Bezel I noted her every look and action.
When Hilliston's name occurred she flushed up and looked savage; she was
anxious to know all about the wife at Kensington Gore, and in every way
showed that she had more interest in the man than she cared to confess.
Again, she told me that her illness was of ten years' duration.
Hilliston has been married ten years. What is more likely than that he
should have wearied of the invalid, and so deserted her for Mrs.
Derrick, the rich widow.
Mrs. Bezel is jealous of Hilliston and of his wife. Her love has changed
to hatred, and I verily believe that she would harm him if she could.
Already she has attempted to do so, for it was only her threat to reveal
all to Claude that made Hilliston produce that report of the Larcher
affair. She has told me all she knows, but I cannot help thinking that
she is keeping back certain facts connected with the case. There is a
hesitancy and doubt in her speech which points to some secret. If I
could learn that secret it might establish the guilt of Hilliston.
And yet I cannot believe that. No woman, however vain, however
frivolous, would have lived with the man who murdered her husband, who
slew the father of her child. Mrs. Bezel's secret may not directly
inculpate Hilliston, but it may point toward him as the possible
assassin. But I cannot believe that she thinks him guilty. Their
relations with one another forbids so horrible a supposition.
Nevertheless, Hilliston is afraid of the truth coming to light. He
denies that the garnet scarfpin ever existed, while Mrs. Bezel said she
saw it herself. If the lawyer is not afraid, why should he tell a
deliberate lie? It is his word against that of Mrs. Bezel, and as her
statement is backed up by the description in the novel, I believe she is
telling the truth. Can it be possible that the scarfpin belonged to
Hilliston and was dropped by him in the garden of The Laurels on the
night of the struggle?
Here Hilliston proves an alibi. He stated to Claude that at the hour of
three o'clock, when the crime was presumably committed, he was at the
ball in the Horriston Town Hall. If that can be proved, he must,
perforce, be innocent.
Another supposition: Can Mrs. Larcher be actually guilty of her
husband's death, and, knowing this, is Hilliston anxious to stop Claude
in his investigations lest he should learn so terrible a truth? I cannot
believe this, for Mrs. Larcher, or Bezel, set the ball rolling herself,
and were she guilty she certainly would not have run such risk.
Then, again, Jeringham fled on the night of the murder. For what reason?
If Hilliston killed Larcher why should Jeringham fly? If Mrs. Bezel
killed her husband why should Jeringham fly? I see no reason in his
flight, and yet if he were guilty and Hilliston knew him to be guilty
why should he try and screen him at the present time? Altogether the
case is so confusing that I do not know what to think or whom to
suspect.
I wonder what has become of Mona Bantry and her child? Mrs. Bezel said
she had not seen the girl or her brother for twenty-five years. Yet they
must be somewhere. Circumstances point to Jenny Paynton having heard the
story of the tragedy from Denis, for no one else could have revealed the
episode of the scarfpin, or have described the jewel. If Denis told her
he must live at Thorston, and if he lives there his sister must be with
him. If this pair, who were in the house on the night of the murder, can
be found, the truth may come to light.
After searching Thorston and finding out all I can from the
Bantrys,--presuming them to be there,--it is my intention to go down to
Horriston and find out someone who remembers the case. In spite of the
lapse of time there must be some old people alive who danced at that
ball in their hot youth. They may be able to say if George Larcher was
there present in the character of Darnley, and at what time Hilliston
left the ball. I may also hear what they think of Jeringham, and of the
conduct of Mrs. Bezel. In making these investigations I shall not take
Claude, as I shrewdly suspect the opinions of these oldsters regarding
his mother are anything but flattering to that lady. If I go to
Horriston I must go alone.
On reading over these notes I am hardly satisfied with them. They do not
seem to give me much basis on which to work. I suspect this person and
the other, but I have very little evidence to back me up in such
suspicions. The only thing that seems clear to me is that Hilliston has
some object in thwarting our plans. What the object is I must find out.
Perhaps I shall do so at Thorston, where I am certain to meet both
Hilliston and his wife.
And that reminds me of what Claude related about her emotion this
evening. It is certainly curious, but the worst of dabbling in detective
business is that one is apt to get over-suspicious. In this case I think
there is no ground for suspicion. Mrs. Hilliston is an American, and
came to England twelve years ago. I know this for certain, for I
remember when she made her _début_ in society. This being the case, she
cannot possibly have any connection with Horriston, and her emotion must
have been merely the recollection of the story related by her husband
when he told her of Claude.
Well, it is past midnight, and I had better end these unsatisfactory
notes. Detective business is harder than I thought. How am I to evolve
order out of all this chaos I hardly know, save to trust to luck and
Jenny Paynton. And so to bed, as saith worthy Samuel Pepys.