The Third Volume
Page 21
CHAPTER XX.
A PRECIS OF THE CASE.
A MONTH ago had anyone prophesied that I, Spenser Tait, would be engagedin playing the part of an amateur detective, I should have flatlycontradicted his prognostication. Yet here I am doing my best to solvethe mystery which hangs round the death of my friend's father. I cannotsay that I object to the task, for there is something tremendouslyexciting in this man hunt. My friendship for Claude is the principalfactor which induces me to meddle with the business; but a slightflavoring of selfishness is also present.
Hitherto we had been fairly successful, and have at least found a clewlikely 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 ourknowledge points to an interview with Jenny Paynton as the next step tobe taken.
To-morrow we start for Thorston for this purpose, but before exploringthe new field I judge it wise to set down all the facts which have cometo our knowledge, and to deduce therefrom, if possible, a logical reasonfor our future actions. I have my suspicions, but these are vague andintangible. Claude has his suspicions, but these do not coincide withmine. He believes Jeringham to be guilty of the crime. I think Hillistonis likely to prove the assassin. Both of us may be wrong.
To take the case of Mr. Hilliston. His attitude is decidedly aggressiveat the present moment, and he is doing his best to dissuade Claude frominvestigating the case. Why should he do so? George Larcher was hisdearest friend, and met with a cruel fate. If there is any chance of hisfate being avenged, surely Hilliston should be the first to prosecutethe inquiries. Instead of doing so he hangs back, and throws cold wateron 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 thefact that Mrs. Bezel is Claude's mother, and I dare not express myselfas 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 goodman for the indulgence of her own selfish instincts. Guilty she may havebeen, but not with Jeringham. If she had any lover, it was FrancisHilliston. After a visit to Clarence Cottage I believe the view taken ofthe 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 wasanxious to know all about the wife at Kensington Gore, and in every wayshowed 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 heshould 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 changedto 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 revealall to Claude that made Hilliston produce that report of the Larcheraffair. She has told me all she knows, but I cannot help thinking thatshe is keeping back certain facts connected with the case. There is ahesitancy and doubt in her speech which points to some secret. If Icould learn that secret it might establish the guilt of Hilliston.
And yet I cannot believe that. No woman, however vain, howeverfrivolous, would have lived with the man who murdered her husband, whoslew the father of her child. Mrs. Bezel's secret may not directlyinculpate Hilliston, but it may point toward him as the possibleassassin. But I cannot believe that she thinks him guilty. Theirrelations with one another forbids so horrible a supposition.
Nevertheless, Hilliston is afraid of the truth coming to light. Hedenies that the garnet scarfpin ever existed, while Mrs. Bezel said shesaw it herself. If the lawyer is not afraid, why should he tell adeliberate lie? It is his word against that of Mrs. Bezel, and as herstatement is backed up by the description in the novel, I believe she istelling the truth. Can it be possible that the scarfpin belonged toHilliston and was dropped by him in the garden of The Laurels on thenight of the struggle?
Here Hilliston proves an alibi. He stated to Claude that at the hour ofthree o'clock, when the crime was presumably committed, he was at theball in the Horriston Town Hall. If that can be proved, he must,perforce, be innocent.
Another supposition: Can Mrs. Larcher be actually guilty of herhusband's death, and, knowing this, is Hilliston anxious to stop Claudein his investigations lest he should learn so terrible a truth? I cannotbelieve 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. Bezelkilled her husband why should Jeringham fly? I see no reason in hisflight, and yet if he were guilty and Hilliston knew him to be guiltywhy should he try and screen him at the present time? Altogether thecase is so confusing that I do not know what to think or whom tosuspect.
I wonder what has become of Mona Bantry and her child? Mrs. Bezel saidshe had not seen the girl or her brother for twenty-five years. Yet theymust be somewhere. Circumstances point to Jenny Paynton having heard thestory of the tragedy from Denis, for no one else could have revealed theepisode of the scarfpin, or have described the jewel. If Denis told herhe must live at Thorston, and if he lives there his sister must be withhim. If this pair, who were in the house on the night of the murder, canbe found, the truth may come to light.
After searching Thorston and finding out all I can from theBantrys,--presuming them to be there,--it is my intention to go down toHorriston and find out someone who remembers the case. In spite of thelapse of time there must be some old people alive who danced at thatball in their hot youth. They may be able to say if George Larcher wasthere present in the character of Darnley, and at what time Hillistonleft the ball. I may also hear what they think of Jeringham, and of theconduct of Mrs. Bezel. In making these investigations I shall not takeClaude, as I shrewdly suspect the opinions of these oldsters regardinghis mother are anything but flattering to that lady. If I go toHorriston I must go alone.
On reading over these notes I am hardly satisfied with them. They do notseem to give me much basis on which to work. I suspect this person andthe other, but I have very little evidence to back me up in suchsuspicions. The only thing that seems clear to me is that Hilliston hassome 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 bothHilliston and his wife.
And that reminds me of what Claude related about her emotion thisevening. It is certainly curious, but the worst of dabbling in detectivebusiness is that one is apt to get over-suspicious. In this case I thinkthere is no ground for suspicion. Mrs. Hilliston is an American, andcame to England twelve years ago. I know this for certain, for Iremember when she made her _debut_ in society. This being the case, shecannot possibly have any connection with Horriston, and her emotion musthave been merely the recollection of the story related by her husbandwhen he told her of Claude.
Well, it is past midnight, and I had better end these unsatisfactorynotes. Detective business is harder than I thought. How am I to evolveorder out of all this chaos I hardly know, save to trust to luck andJenny Paynton. And so to bed, as saith worthy Samuel Pepys.