FROM THE COLUMNS OF THE "THE EVENING MOON," UNDER
THE HEADING, "THE MYSTERY OF M. FELIX SOLVED."
"The stirring incidents of a great city are so numerous, and so
pressing in their demands upon the space of the local papers, that it
occasionally happens that incidents as stirring and exciting which
occur at a distance from the Metropolis are either overlooked or
dismissed in a short paragraph at the bottom of a column. This
happened in a trial for murder which took place in the Midland
Circuit, and, were it not that this particular case bears directly
upon the mystery known as The Mystery of M. Felix, its remarkable
features would probably have escaped notice in the Metropolitan
journals. The circumstances of the case, so far as they were known to
the public on the day on which the trial took place, are as simple as
they are singular. A man was found murdered in Deering Woods. He was a
stranger in the neighborhood, and nothing was found on him which could
establish his identity. His pockets were empty, and his underclothing
was unmarked. He met his death by a shot fired from a revolver, and
the bullet was extracted from his body. In the same woods on the same
night a man suspected of the murder was taken into custody. He had in
his possession a six-barrelled revolver, and one of the barrels had
been discharged. Upon being questioned he refused to answer, but
looked vacantly about him. The bullet which was extracted from the
body of the murdered man fitted the discharged barrel, and was similar
to the bullets, with which the remaining five barrels were loaded. The
accused, who was properly committed for trial, was, like the victim, a
stranger in the neighborhood, and bore about him nothing that could
lead to his identification. His silence was a suspicious element in
the charge against him, and the revolver with which the deed was done
being found upon him, there was little room for doubt that he was the
murderer. What the motive for the crime could have been it is
impossible to say; if it were robbery the stolen property was
carefully hidden away, for no traces of it were discovered. The
evidence was simple, but appeared to be complete, and the accused lay
in prison until the Assizes, which were held soon after he was
committed. At the trial he preserved the same stubborn silence as he
had maintained before the magistrate. Asked to plead, he made no
answer, and a plea of not guilty was recorded. He had no counsel, and
one was assigned to him. The young barrister to whom the defence was
entrusted had a difficult task before him. He could obtain not the
least assistance from the prisoner, who stood in the dock apparently
unconcerned regarding his fate. But it is said that there could
occasionally have been observed on his features a pitiful expression,
which aroused the sympathy of the spectators. This expression has been
described by an onlooker as that of a man who had borne the cruellest
and bitterest of buffets in his course through life, and who had been
brought to a pass in which he looked upon death as the kindest mercy
which could be meted out to him. There were women in court who sobbed
as they gazed upon his sad and hopeless face, and yet could not have
accounted for their tears on any other ground than those of
unreasoning sentiment. That this mute and unconscious appeal had a
powerful effect upon the jury will be seen a little further on; it
certainly led them to act in a manner which is perhaps unprecedented
in a trial for murder in an English court of justice. It will be seen
that there were very few witnesses. The surgeon who extracted the
bullet, a gun-maker who testified that the barrel had been recently
discharged, and that the bullet was one of six with which the weapon
had been loaded, the constables who arrested the prisoner--these were
all that were called for the prosecution. The Crown counsel elicited
all the facts in a fair and impartial manner, and it was evident that
he considered the case conclusive. The cross-examination was skilfully
conducted, severe tests being applied to the evidence respecting the
bullet; but the witnesses remained unshaken. The cross-examination of
the constables was directed principally to the demeanor and conduct of
the prisoner. Did he make any resistance?--No. When he was arrested,
was he endeavoring to make his escape?--It did not appear so; he was
wandering through the woods. Was it, to all appearance, an aimless
wandering?--Yes. Did he make any excuses for, or give any explanation
of his presence in the woods?--He did not utter a single word. Did he
endeavor to hide or get rid of the revolver?--No. For the defence a
physician who had examined the prisoner was called. His testimony was
to the effect that the prisoner was afflicted with melancholia, and
that his mind was in such a condition as to render him irresponsible
for his actions. It was clear that the line set up for the defence was
that the prisoner was insane. The cross-examination of the physician
somewhat damaged the weight of his evidence. Did he base his belief
that the prisoner was afflicted with melancholia and was not
responsible for his actions on the circumstance of his refusing to
speak?--Partly, but only to a slight extent. Had he not met in his
professional experiences with cases in which persons accused of crime
preserved an obstinate and dogged silence for the express purpose of
being considered insane and irresponsible?--Yes, there had been such
cases. Scanty as was the evidence it occupied several hours. Counsel
for the defence made an eloquent and impassioned defence on the plea
of irresponsibility and insanity, and then the prosecuting counsel
addressed the jury. He dealt in hard and plain facts; he spoke coldly
and without passion; he refused to entertain the line of the defence,
and said it was more than likely that the prisoner's demeanor
proceeded from a cunning nature, and that he hoped by this means to
escape the consequences of a ruthless murder committed in cold blood.
The Judge, who said that there was no reason why the trial should not
be concluded that night, and that the Court would sit late to receive
the verdict, summed up dead against the prisoner. Following in the
train of the counsel for the Crown, he laid down the law in the
clearest manner, and he directed the jury to consider certain issues
and be guided by them, and to perform conscientiously the duty for
which they were called together. At a quarter to ten o'clock the jury
retired, and the Judge left the court, with directions that he should
be called when the jury returned.
"It was at this stage of the inquiry that the case promised to assume
a new aspect. Our reporter, Mr. Agnold, with whom our readers are
acquainted, and to whom the public are indebted for the light thrown
upon the Mystery of M. Felix, entered the court in the company of the
young girl, Sophy, and immediately fell into earnest conversation with
the counsel for the defence. Their conversation lasted a considerable
time, during which the counsel took copious notes, breaking off
occasionally to put questions to Sophy, who answered them readily.
Once the counsel turned Sophy's attention to the prisoner, and she
moved toward him. He, turning, saw her, and greeted her with a smile
of much sweetness, to which she pitifully responded. This sign of
mutual recognition, indicating as it did an acquaintanceship between
the prisoner and the young girl, heightened to fever-pitch the
interest and excitement of the spectators, but before any explanation
of the incident could be given, the return of the jury was announced.
Almost at the same moment the Judge made his appearance. The names of
the jury were about to be called out, when the counsel for the defence
rose for the purpose of making a remark, but was desired by the Judge
to resume his seat until the verdict of the jury was given.
"Counsel for the defence: 'If your Lordship knew the importance of the
observations I wish to make----'
"The Judge: 'I must request you to be seated until we have done with
the jury. Then I will hear you.'
"The jury having answered to their names, were asked if they had
agreed upon a verdict; whereupon the following conversation took
place:
"The Foreman of the Jury: 'My Lord, the jury wish me to say that they
are morally convinced that the prisoner is not guilty.'
"The Judge: 'That is not a verdict. It is not a question of being
morally convinced; it is a question of being legally convinced.'
"The Foreman: 'But the jury have the strongest moral doubts, my Lord.'
"The Judge: 'They would not be sufficient to lead to a verdict. The
doubts must be legal doubts. It is not for me to influence you one way
or another. I have put the facts of the case before you, and it is
upon those facts you must decide and pronounce your verdict.'
"The Foreman (after a brief consultation with his brother jurymen):
'Our verdict, my Lord, is Not guilty.'
"The Judge: 'Upon what grounds have you arrived at your verdict?'
"The Foreman: 'Upon the grounds of moral conviction, my Lord.'
"The Judge: 'It is my duty to tell you again that those grounds are
insufficient. Sentiment has nothing whatever to do with a criminal
case. I must request you to retire and reconsider your verdict.'
"The Foreman: 'With all respect, my Lord, it is useless. We have
resolved to return no other verdict than the one we have given, and
upon the grounds I have stated.'
"Several of the jury gave audible assent to their foreman's words.
"The Judge: 'I cannot receive your verdict, accompanied by your
statement. You will retire and give the matter further consideration.'
"The Foreman: 'If we are locked up all night, my Lord, we shall return
no other verdict.'
"The Judge: 'I do not wish to be harsh or oppressive. Equally with
yourselves I have a duty to perform. If you do not rightly comprehend
any part of the evidence, say so, and I will explain it to you.'
"The Foreman: 'We have no doubts, my Lord. We understand the evidence
thoroughly.'
"The Judge: 'Oh, if you cannot agree----'
"The Foreman: 'We are thoroughly agreed, my Lord.'
"The Judge: 'You will retire.'
"The jury were then conducted out of court.
"The Judge, addressing counsel for the defence: 'I am ready to hear
you now.'
"Counsel: 'My Lord, during your Lordship's absence from court, while
the jury were considering their verdict, the most important
revelations have been made to me.'
"The Judge: 'Bearing upon this case?'
"Counsel: 'Bearing directly upon this case. Two persons are present
now, who, if I had been able to call them, would have thrown an
entirely different light upon the case. One of them is personally
acquainted with the prisoner, the other does not know him personally,
but knows his name.'
"The Judge 'The Crown is not represented. The learned counsel is not
in court. I cannot now hear statements from other persons; but you can
go on with your statement. His name is known, you say?'
"Counsel: 'Yes, my Lord. It is Gerald Paget.'
At this mention of his name the prisoner became violently agitated.
His countenance was convulsed, and he stretched forth his arms, which
trembled from excess of emotion.
"The Judge: 'The prisoner appears to be ill. Is there a doctor in
court?'
"The prisoner (speaking for the first time): 'I am not ill. I want to
hear what he has to say.'
"Counsel: 'For nineteen years he has been supposed to be dead, and, in
pursuance of a diabolical plot, has been confined in a private
madhouse as another person. It is this cruel imprisonment which has
reduced him to the condition in which we now see him.'
"The Judge: 'Your statement is an extraordinary one.'
"Counsel: 'I shall be able, my Lord, to establish its truth, and the
truth of other facts as extraordinary. The strange story which has
been revealed to me is too lengthy and complicated to narrate at this
hour, but if your Lordship will adjourn until to-morrow I undertake to
prove the unfortunate prisoner's innocence, and also the guilt of the
man who should now be standing in his place.'
"The Judge: 'Is the man known? Can he be found?'
"Counsel: 'He is known, and is now in prison under another charge
which is directly connected with the murder for which the prisoner has
been tried.'
"The Judge: 'If your statements are true the case is unprecedented.'
"Counsel: 'It is, my Lord. The person who is guilty of the murder was
the prisoner's keeper. There has hitherto been no identification of
the murdered man; I am now in a position to prove who he was. He bore
the name of Leonard Paget.'
"The Judge: 'Paget is the name of the prisoner.'
"Counsel: 'They were half brothers. There is a question of property
involved.'
"An officer of the court here presented himself, and said that the
jury wished to speak to the judge.
"The Judge: 'Let them be brought in.'
"Upon this being done, the Judge asked the foreman what he had to say.
"The Foreman: 'It is simply, my Lord, that there is not the remotest
possibility of our returning any other verdict than that we have
delivered, and in the precise terms in which we have delivered it.
There is not the slightest difference of opinion between us; we are
absolutely unanimous.'
"The Judge: 'As I have already told you, it is no verdict. Officer,
what is that noise?'
"Counsel: 'Witnesses from London have just arrived, my Lord, who are
ready to prove the truth of the statements I have made.'
"An extraordinary scene ensued. One of the newly-arrived witnesses was
a lady, whose eyes travelled round the court, and finally rested upon
the prisoner. In this lady our readers will have no difficulty in
recognizing Emilia Paget The moment she saw the prisoner a look of
incredulous joy sprang into her eyes.
"'Merciful God!' she cried. 'Has the dead returned to life? Am I awake
or dreaming?'
"The Prisoner, with a wild scream: 'Emilia!'
"Emilia: 'It is his voice! Gerald! Gerald!'
"She rushed to the prisoner, and no attempt was made to restrain her.
Throwing her arms round his neck she drew his head down to her breast.
Convulsive sobs shook their frames.
"Counsel, solemnly: 'My Lord, the prisoner is this lady's husband,
whom she has mourned as dead for nineteen years.'
"The Foreman of the Jury: 'My Lord, if anything was needed to prove
the justice of our verdict, the proof is now supplied.'
"The Judge: 'You are discharged. The Court is adjourned. Remove the
prisoner.'
"Counsel: 'My Lord, my Lord! May not this afflicted couple be allowed
a few minutes' intercourse?'
"The Judge: 'I leave it to the discretion of the officers in charge of
the prisoner.'
"Counsel: 'Direct them my lord. Say that it may be allowed.'
"The Judge: 'It may be allowed. But all the persons not directly
concerned in this unparalleled case must retire.'
"Slowly and reluctantly the spectators left the court in a state of
indescribable excitement."