A Modern Wizard

by Rodrigues Ottolengui

  CHAPTER IX.

  THE DEFENCE CLOSES.

  The next day's proceedings began promptly, Dr. Medjora taking thestand for cross-examination. His evidence in his own behalf, it wasgenerally conceded, had materially weakened the prosecution's case,and it was with much interest that the lawyers watched the outcome ofhis cross-examination. Mr. Munson began:

  "You have testified that Miss Sloane was a morphine _habitue_." Beforehe could propound a question based upon this statement, the Doctorreplied quickly:

  "I have not so testified."

  "You have not?" asked the attorney, with much surprise.

  "No! I said that she had taken morphine, for pain from Bright'sdisease, until she had almost become an _habitue_."

  "That is practically the same thing," said the lawyer, testily.

  "Pardon my disagreeing with you. Had she become a confirmed user ofthe drug, for the drug's sake, she would probably have been suspectedby those who lived in the house with her, and thus it would be easyfor us to produce witnesses in corroboration of my assertion. But asshe used it merely to soothe pain, even though she did take largedoses, it was at such intervals, that symptoms of morphine were notsufficiently marked to attract the attention of an ordinary observer."

  Messrs. Dudley and Bliss were delighted at this early proof that theDoctor would be a match for the astute attorney, who was about toendeavor to entangle him in contradictions, or damaging admissions.

  "Oh! Very well!" said Mr. Munson. "You say that she took morphine inlarge doses. You knew this, and also that she had a serious disease,and yet you left her alone in a strange boarding-house, whilst youwent away to Europe?"

  "I left her under the medical care of one who certainly possessedskill, and who pretended to be my friend. I went to Europe, in thecause of humanity, to prosecute studies which I yet hope to make abenefit to my fellows." Thus the Doctor confidently predicted hisacquittal. This was most shrewd, for it not infrequently occurs thatmen may be moved by suggestion, even when not in the hypnotic state.Dr. Medjora was a past master in psychological science.

  "How long had you been married, at this time?"

  "Eighteen months."

  "Then, when you left this woman, she was not only suffering fromdisease, and the dangers of morphine, but she was grieving for herdead child, was she not?"

  This was a neat trap, sprung without warning, but the game was shy andwary. The Doctor replied sternly:

  "I have not testified either that she had a child, or that, if so, shehad lost it."

  "Well, did she have a child?"

  "You have had expert testimony upon that point. Why ask me?"

  "That is my affair. Answer my question."

  "I must decline to do so!"

  "I appeal to the court to compel the witness to answer."

  "Your Honor," cried Mr. Dudley, rising, "we object. Counsel, for someundiscoverable reason, seems determined to probe the private affairsof our client. We think that this question is irrelevant andincompetent."

  "What is the object of this, Mr. Munson," asked the Recorder.

  "Your Honor has ruled, and a million precedents uphold you, that wemay examine into the relations that existed between the accused andthe deceased."

  "Your Honor," interjected Mr. Dudley, "you allowed a similar questionyesterday, because counsel argued, that if he could prove theexistence of a natural child, he would show that the deceased throughthe child had strong claim upon our client. I will also call yourHonor's attention to the fact, that at that time allusion was made toanother visionary claim on the part of the prosecution. This was thatDr. Medjora was in the position to marry a wealthy woman, and that thepoor musician, with her child, became an obstacle in his way. Now, nota scintilla of evidence has been brought out, in substantiation ofthat claim, which as I said, at that time, was made merely to affectthe jury. Moreover, since then, we have shown that this woman was thelawful wife of Dr. Medjora, and, therefore, her having, or not havinga child, can have no possible bearing upon the issue. I hope that thequestion will not be allowed."

  "I cannot see," said the Recorder, "what is to be gained by this, Mr.Munson?"

  "Oh, very well, your Honor," said Mr. Munson, "if you think that it isunnecessary to the case of the people, I will withdraw it. We onlyseek for justice, despite the aspersions of counsel."

  "I have no doubt whatever of your conscientiousness," said theRecorder, to mollify the rising anger of Mr. Munson. The examinationthen proceeded.

  "You told us yesterday, that you had received a letter whilst inEurope, in which Miss Sloane wrote that Dr. Meredith was persecutingher with his attentions. Of course you have that letter?"

  "No! It has been lost, unfortunately!"

  "Unfortunately lost! I should say most unfortunately lost, since it isthe only corroboration you had of your remarkable statement. How didyou happen to lose this precious document?"

  "I think that it was stolen when my office was searched by detectives,who were accompanied by Dr. Meredith."

  The insinuation deftly concealed in this statement, that either Dr.Meredith had taken the paper, or that the District Attorney hadsuppressed it, had a visible effect upon the jury, who looked from oneto the other significantly. Mr. Munson was chagrined to find what hehad thought a good point in his favor, thus turned against him soquickly. He attempted to repair the damage.

  "You say you think this. Do you not know, that what a man thinks isnot admissible in evidence?"

  "I did the best that I could to answer your question." This reply, inthe humblest of tones, caused a smile.

  "You have no positive knowledge that it was stolen, have you?"

  "I know that it was locked in my desk, that during my absence the deskwas forced open, and that upon my return the paper was gone. Whetherit was stolen, or whether it forced its way out of my desk, you maydecide for yourself."

  "You have no evidence, beyond your own word, that Dr. Meredith actedas you have charged?"

  "None!"

  "You never told any friend, before the death of this girl, that Dr.Meredith had persecuted her?"

  "No. I had no confidants."

  "Not even when you found that he had been called in to attend MissSloane? You did not explain this to Dr. Fisher?"

  "No. Dr. Fisher was comparatively a stranger to me. I knew him byassociation in societies only."

  "You could have spoken to him however, and so have had Dr. Meredithdismissed from the case."

  "I considered the matter, and decided not to do so."

  "Why did you come to so singular a conclusion?"

  "Because, as I have already testified, despite my animosity, Iconcurred with Dr. Fisher's estimate of his skill. I thought him themost valuable consulting physician to be had, and, in a case of lifeand death, I believed that personal antagonisms should be forgotten."

  "You say Dr. Meredith was the most valuable consulting physician to behad. Do you mean that he is the most skilled expert that you know?"

  "No. But he is skilful and his office is very near to the house wherethe patient was. That fact was of importance in deciding whether toretain him or not."

  Mr. Munson seemed to strive almost in vain to outwit the witness whoadroitly parried every attack.

  "You have claimed," continued the lawyer, "that Miss Sloaneadministered morphine to herself?"

  "I assert it."

  "Then at least you admit that a dose, a large dose, was taken by thedeceased in your presence, on the day of her death?"

  "Yes."

  "And though you, as a physician, were conversant with her troubles andaware of the danger of such a dose, you did not prevent her fromtaking this dangerous poison?"

  "I endeavored to do so. I took the syringe away from her."

  "You took it away from her after she had taken nearly all of thedose?"

  "She had taken all but five minims before I could reach her."

  "It was you who sent the nurse away, I believe?"

  "I gave her permission to go out
."

  "You told her to remain until nine o'clock?"

  "I told her that she might do so."

  "And this syringe incident occurred at eight o'clock?"

  "At eight thirty."

  "That is, half an hour before you expected to be interrupted by thereturn of the nurse?"

  "You do not word your questions justly. I did not expect to beinterrupted by the return of the nurse. To be interrupted, one must beoccupied with some special work. I was not specially engaged."

  "You were supposed to be specially engaged watching your patient, inplace of the nurse, with whose services you had dispensed. Had youdone your full duty, that is, had you done what the nurse would havedone, kept your patient under surveillance, she would not have had achance to take the morphine, would she?"

  "It may be that I was grievously at fault, not to observe her moreclosely. But I thought that she was asleep. An error is not a crime."

  "There are errors that are criminal. Your jury will judge in thiscase. Now, if you please, answer my question without further evasion.Did not the nurse return half an hour sooner than you expected her?"

  "She returned half an hour earlier than the time up to which I hadgiven her permission to be away."

  "Exactly. Now, had she remained the full time, she would not haveknown anything about this morphine incident?"

  "Of course not."

  "In which case, you would have kept it a secret."

  "Most probably."

  "But, as she did see you handling the syringe, you knew that she wouldbe in the position to testify to the fact that you yourselfadministered the morphine?"

  "It is not a fact that I administered the morphine, but I supposedthat she would so testify, judging from what she saw."

  "Judging honestly?"

  "Yes. Judging honestly."

  "So that this professional nurse, accustomed herself to usinghypodermic syringes, had a right, as you admit, to judge from what shesaw, that you administered morphine to the patient?"

  "She saw me taking away the syringe, and of course could conclude thatI inserted the needle myself. Nevertheless her opinion was only anopinion; it was not knowledge."

  "Very well. You admit that she had a right to her opinion, and thatyou suspected what that opinion would be. Now, of course you realized,being an intellectual man, that such evidence would weigh againstyou?"

  "I fully appreciated the gravity of the situation."

  "And that if not refuted, this testimony almost alone, would tendtowards a conviction?"

  "Yes."

  "Therefore you decided to claim that the drug was self-administered,knowing that the administration would be proved?"

  "I knew that the administration of the drug would be proved. But myreason for saying that it was self-administered, is because it is thetruth."

  "That will be for the jury to decide!" With this parting shot thelawyer dismissed the witness, and his own counsel decided to ask nofurther questions.

  The clergyman who had performed the marriage ceremony, then took thestand, and testified to the validity of the marriage. He was notcross-examined.

  Then a celebrated expert toxicologist was called, Professor Newburg.He testified in corroboration of the claims of the defence, andespecially to the large doses of morphine, which he had known to betolerated by persons accustomed to it by habit. It also was claimed byhim, that persons who had been known to take as much as four and fivegrains per day without ill effect, had suddenly died from so small adose as half a grain. He thought that in these cases the drug hadaccumulated in the system, and the whole quantity stored up, was madeactive by the assimilation of the last dose, which of itself would nothave been poisonous. Cross-examination did not materially alter histestimony.

  Next a pathologist was introduced, and in answer to a longhypothetical question, based upon the testimony of Dr. Fisher and theexperts for the prosecution, he said that in his opinion the deceaseddied from anaemia, following diphtheria. The symptoms of morphinepoisoning observed were probably due to the morphine which she hadtaken, but under the conditions described, he did not think that eventhree and a half grains would have caused death. He came to thisconclusion, arguing that the condition of the kidneys showed that theywere diseased, and the tendency would have been to store up this lastdose, just as previous doses had probably been retained. In that eventonly a small portion would have become active, and whilst it mighthave caused contracted pupils, it would not have caused death. Allthings duly considered, therefore, he thought that death wasattributable to diphtheria.

  Under cross-examination he admitted the postulate of the previouswitness, that a small dose, following retained larger doses, mightcause death, but still he adhered to his opinion that it had notoccurred here. A long series of questions failed to shake his opinion,or cause him to contradict himself.

  Several other witnesses were called, but I need scarcely introducetheir evidence here, as much of it was of small importance, and noneof it could have materially affected the verdict. The defence thenrested.

  Mr. Munson called several witnesses in rebuttal, but to so littleeffect that Mr. Bliss did not even cross-examine them, considering hiscase practically won. He did interfere, however, when Mr. Munson atlast called Madame Cora Corona.

  "I must ask your Honor, what counsel expects to prove by this witness,and moreover, your Honor, I will ask that the jury be sent from theroom, before any discussion of this subject be allowed."

  This request was granted, and the jury went into an adjoiningapartment. Mr. Munson then explained:

  "We have been trying for a long time to summon this witness, yourHonor, but she has skilfully avoided the court officers, so that itwas only this morning that we found her. She will testify to the factthat Dr. Medjora has been courting her, and seeking a marriage withher, even previous to the death of the woman who he claims was hiswife."

  "That is the most extraordinary expedient I have ever heard of, yourHonor," said Mr. Bliss. "Counsel certainly knows better, than tosuppose that at this late hour he can introduce new evidence. Hecertainly cannot claim that this is in rebuttal!"

  "But I do claim that!" said Mr. Munson.

  "What does it rebut?" asked the Recorder.

  "This man claims that he was a true and loving husband to his wife,and denies that he contemplated such a marriage as this one, by whicha wealthy wife would aid him to accomplish his ambitions."

  "That claim, Mr. Munson, was made by counsel for the defence," saidthe Recorder. "It has not come out upon the witness stand. You cannotintroduce a witness to rebut a statement of counsel. If you wished tointroduce this evidence you should have questioned the prisoner uponthese points when on the witness stand. Had he denied the desire tomarry again, I would have allowed you to disprove his assertion bythis witness. As it is, I must rule out the evidence offered."

  Mr. Munson bit his lip in mortification, when the Recorder pointed outto him the serious omission made in the examination of the accused,but of course he was powerless to do anything. Having no other witnessto call, when the jurors had returned to their seats, Mr. Bliss aroseand addressed the jury.