The Mystery of 31 New Inn

by R. Austin Freeman

  Chapter XV

  Thorndyke Explodes the Mine

  We had not been back in our chambers more than a few minutes when thelittle brass knocker on the inner door rattled out its summons.Thorndyke himself opened the door, and, finding our three expectedvisitors on the threshold, he admitted them and closed the "oak."

  "We have accepted your invitation, you see," said Marchmont, whosemanner was now a little flurried and uneasy. "This is my partner, Mr.Winwood; you haven't met before, I think. Well, we thought we shouldlike to hear some further particulars from you, as we could not quiteunderstand your letter."

  "My conclusion, I suppose," said Thorndyke, "was a little unexpected?"

  "It was more than that, sir," exclaimed Winwood. "It was absolutelyirreconcilable either with the facts of the case or with common physicalpossibilities."

  "At the first glance," Thorndyke agreed, "it would probably have thatappearance."

  "It has that appearance still to me." said Winwood, growing suddenly redand wrathful, "and I may say that I speak as a solicitor who waspractising in the law when you were an infant in arms. You tell us, sir,that this will is a forgery; this will, which was executed in broaddaylight in the presence of two unimpeachable witnesses who have sworn,not only to their signatures and the contents of the document, but totheir very finger-marks on the paper. Are those finger-marks forgeries,too? Have you examined and tested them?"

  "I have not," replied Thorndyke. "The fact is they are of no interest tome, as I am not disputing the witnesses' signatures."

  At this, Mr. Winwood fairly danced with irritation.

  "Marchmont!" he exclaimed fiercely, "you know this good gentleman, Ibelieve. Tell me, is he addicted to practical jokes?"

  "Now, my dear Winwood," groaned Marchmont, "I pray you--I beg you tocontrol yourself. No doubt--"

  "But confound it!" roared Winwood, "you have, yourself, heard him saythat the will is a forgery, but that he doesn't dispute the signatures;which," concluded Winwood, banging his fist down on the table, "isdamned nonsense."

  "May I suggest," interposed Stephen Blackmore, "that we came here toreceive Dr. Thorndyke's explanation of his letter. Perhaps it would bebetter to postpone any comments until we have heard it."

  "Undoubtedly, undoubtedly," said Marchmont. "Let me entreat you,Winwood, to listen patiently and refrain from interruption until we haveheard our learned friend's exposition of the case."

  "Oh, very well," Winwood replied sulkily; "I'll say no more."

  He sank into a chair with the manner of a man who shuts himself up andturns the key; and so remained--excepting when the internal pressureapproached bursting-point--throughout the subsequent proceedings,silent, stony and impassive, like a seated statue of Obstinacy.

  "I take it," said Marchmont, "that you have some new facts that are notin our possession?"

  "Yes," replied Thorndyke; "we have some new facts, and we have made somenew use of the old ones. But how shall I lay the case before you? ShallI state my theory of the sequence of events and furnish the verificationafterwards? Or shall I retrace the actual course of my investigationsand give you the facts in the order in which I obtained them myself,with the inferences from them?"

  "I almost think," said Mr. Marchmont, "that it would be better if youwould put us in possession of the new facts. Then, if the conclusionsthat follow from them are not sufficiently obvious, we could hear theargument. What do you say, Winwood?"

  Mr. Winwood roused himself for an instant, barked out the one word"Facts," and shut himself up again with a snap.

  "You would like to have the new facts by themselves?" said Thorndyke.

  "If you please. The facts only, in the first place, at any rate."

  "Very well," said Thorndyke; and here I caught his eye with amischievous twinkle in it that I understood perfectly; for I had most ofthe facts myself and realized how much these two lawyers were likely toextract from them. Winwood was going to "have a run for his money," asThorndyke had promised.

  My colleague, having placed on the table by his side a small cardboardbox and the sheets of notes from his file, glanced quickly at Mr.Winwood and began:

  "The first important new facts came into my possession on the day onwhich you introduced the case to me. In the evening, after you left, Iavailed myself of Mr. Stephen's kind invitation to look over his uncle'schambers in New Inn. I wished to do so in order to ascertain, ifpossible, what had been the habits of the deceased during his residencethere. When I arrived with Dr. Jervis, Mr. Stephen was in the chambers,and I learned from him that his uncle was an Oriental scholar of someposition and that he had a very thorough acquaintance with the cuneiformwriting. Now, while I was talking with Mr. Stephen I made a very curiousdiscovery. On the wall over the fire-place hung a large framedphotograph of an ancient Persian inscription in the cuneiform character;and that photograph was upside down."

  "Upside down!" exclaimed Stephen. "But that is really very odd."

  "Very odd indeed," agreed Thorndyke, "and very suggestive. The way inwhich it came to be inverted is pretty obvious and also rathersuggestive. The photograph had evidently been in the frame some yearsbut had apparently never been hung up before."

  "It had not," said Stephen, "though I don't know how you arrived at thefact. It used to stand on the mantelpiece in his old rooms in JermynStreet."

  "Well," continued Thorndyke, "the frame-maker had pasted his label onthe back of the frame, and as this label hung the right way up, itappeared as if the person who fixed the photograph on the wall hadadopted it as a guide."

  "It is very extraordinary," said Stephen. "I should have thought theperson who hung it would have asked Uncle Jeffrey which was the rightway up; and I can't imagine how on earth it could have hung all thosemonths without his noticing it. He must have been practically blind."

  Here Marchmont, who had been thinking hard, with knitted brows, suddenlybrightened up.

  "I see your point," said he. "You mean that if Jeffrey was as blind asthat, it would have been possible for some person to substitute a falsewill, which he might sign without noticing the substitution."

  "That wouldn't make the will a forgery," growled Winwood. "If Jeffreysigned it, it was Jeffrey's will. You could contest it if you couldprove the fraud. But he said: 'This is my will,' and the two witnessesread it and have identified it."

  "Did they read it aloud?" asked Stephen.

  "No, they did not," replied Thorndyke.

  "Can you prove substitution?" asked Marchmont.

  "I haven't asserted it," answered Thorndyke, "My position is that thewill is a forgery."

  "But it is not," said Winwood.

  "We won't argue it now," said Thorndyke. "I ask you to note the factthat the inscription was upside down. I also observed on the walls ofthe chambers some valuable Japanese colour-prints on which were recentdamp-spots. I noted that the sitting-room had a gas-stove and that thekitchen contained practically no stores or remains of food and hardlyany traces of even the simplest cooking. In the bedroom I found a largebox that had contained a considerable stock of hard stearine candles,six to the pound, and that was now nearly empty. I examined the clothingof the deceased. On the soles of the boots I observed dried mud, whichwas unlike that on my own and Jervis's boots, from the gravelly squareof the inn. I noted a crease on each leg of the deceased man's trousersas if they had been turned up half-way to the knee; and in the waistcoatpocket I found the stump of a 'Contango' pencil. On the floor of thebedroom, I found a portion of an oval glass somewhat like that of awatch or locket, but ground at the edge to a double bevel. Dr. Jervisand I also found one or two beads and a bugle, all of dark brown glass."

  Here Thorndyke paused, and Marchmont, who had been gazing at him withgrowing amazement, said nervously:

  "Er--yes. Very interesting. These observations of yours--er--are--"

  "Are all the observations that I made at New Inn."

  The two lawyers looked at one another and Stephen Blackmore staredfixedly at a spot on the hea
rth-rug. Then Mr. Winwood's face contorteditself into a sour, lopsided smile.

  "You might have observed a good many other things, sir," said he, "ifyou had looked. If you had examined the doors, you would have noted thatthey had hinges and were covered with paint; and, if you had looked upthe chimney you might have noted that it was black inside."

  "Now, now, Winwood," protested Marchmont in an agony of uneasiness as towhat his partner might say next, "I must really beg you--er--to refrainfrom--what Mr. Winwood means, Dr. Thorndyke, is that--er--we do notquite perceive the relevancy of these--ah--observations of yours."

  "Probably not," said Thorndyke, "but you will perceive their relevancylater. For the present, I will ask you to note the facts and bear themin mind, so that you may be able to follow the argument when we come tothat.

  "The next set of data I acquired on the same evening, when Dr. Jervisgave me a detailed account of a very strange adventure that befell him.I need not burden you with all the details, but I will give you thesubstance of his story."

  He then proceeded to recount the incidents connected with my visits toMr. Graves, dwelling on the personal peculiarities of the partiesconcerned and especially of the patient, and not even forgetting thevery singular spectacles worn by Mr. Weiss. He also explained brieflythe construction of the chart, presenting the latter for the inspectionof his hearers. To this recital our three visitors listened in utterbewilderment, as, indeed did I also; for I could not conceive in whatway my adventures could possibly be related to the affairs of the lateMr. Blackmore. This was manifestly the view taken by Mr. Marchmont, for,during a pause in which the chart was handed to him, he remarkedsomewhat stiffly:

  "I am assuming, Dr. Thorndyke, that the curious story you are telling ushas some relevance to the matter in which we are interested."

  "You are quite correct in your assumption," replied Thorndyke. "Thestory is very relevant indeed, as you will presently be convinced."

  "Thank you," said Marchmont, sinking back once more into his chair witha sigh of resignation.

  "A few days ago," pursued Thorndyke, "Dr. Jervis and I located, with theaid of this chart, the house to which he had been called. We found thatthe late tenant had left somewhat hurriedly and that the house was tolet; and, as no other kind of investigation was possible, we obtainedthe keys and made an exploration of the premises."

  Here he gave a brief account of our visit and the conditions that weobserved, and was proceeding to furnish a list of the articles that wehad found under the grate, when Mr. Winwood started from his chair.

  "Really, sir!" he exclaimed, "this is too much! Have I come here, atgreat personal inconvenience, to hear you read the inventory of adust-heap?"

  Thorndyke smiled benevolently and caught my eye, once more, with a gleamof amusement.

  "Sit down, Mr. Winwood," he said quietly. "You came here to learn thefacts of the case, and I am giving them to you. Please don't interruptneedlessly and waste time."

  Winwood stared at him ferociously for several seconds; then, somewhatdisconcerted by the unruffled calm of his manner, he uttered a snort ofdefiance, sat down heavily and shut himself up again.

  "We will now," Thorndyke continued, with unmoved serenity, "considerthese relics in more detail, and we will begin with this pair ofspectacles. They belonged to a person who was near-sighted andastigmatic in the left eye and almost certainly blind in the right. Sucha description agrees entirely with Dr. Jervis's account of the sickman."

  He paused for the moment, and then, as no one made any comment,proceeded:

  "We next come to these little pieces of reed, which you, Mr. Stephen,will probably recognize as the remains of a Japanese brush, such as isused for writing in Chinese ink or for making small drawings."

  Again he paused, as though expecting some remark from his listeners; butno one spoke, and he continued:

  "Then there is this bottle with the theatrical wig-maker's label on it,which once contained cement such as is used for fixing on false beards,moustaches or eyebrows."

  He paused once more and looked round expectantly at his audience, noneof whom, however, volunteered any remark.

  "Do none of these objects that I have described and shown you, seem tohave any significance for us?" he asked, in a tone of some surprise.

  "They convey nothing to me," said Mr. Marchmont, glancing at hispartner, who shook his head like a restive horse.

  "Nor to you, Mr. Stephen?"

  "No," replied Stephen. "Under the existing circumstances they convey noreasonable suggestion to me."

  Thorndyke hesitated as if he were half inclined to say something more;then, with a slight shrug, he turned over his notes and resumed:

  "The next group of new facts is concerned with the signatures of therecent cheques. We have photographed them and placed them together forthe purpose of comparison and analysis."

  "I am not prepared to question the signatures." said Winwood. "We havehad a highly expert opinion, which would override ours in a court of laweven if we differed from it; which I think we do not."

  "Yes," said Marchmont; "that is so. I think we must accept thesignatures, especially as that of the will has been proved, beyond anyquestion" to be authentic."

  "Very well," agreed Thorndyke; "we will pass over the signatures. Thenwe have some further evidence in regard to the spectacles, which servesto verify our conclusions respecting them."

  "Perhaps," said Marchmont, "we might pass over that, too, as we do notseem to have reached any conclusions."

  "As you please," said Thorndyke. "It is important, but we can reserve itfor verification. The next item will interest you more, I think. It isthe signed and witnessed statement of Samuel Wilkins, the driver of thecab in which the deceased came home to the inn on the evening of hisdeath."

  My colleague was right. An actual document, signed by a tangiblewitness, who could be put in the box and sworn, brought both lawyers toa state of attention; and when Thorndyke read out the cabman's evidence,their attention soon quickened into undisguised astonishment.

  "But this is a most mysterious affair," exclaimed Marchmont. "Who couldthis woman have been, and what could she have been doing in Jeffrey'schambers at this time? Can you throw any light on it, Mr. Stephen?"

  "No, indeed I can't," replied Stephen. "It is a complete mystery to me.My uncle Jeffrey was a confirmed old bachelor, and, although he did notdislike women, he was far from partial to their society, wrapped up ashe was in his favourite studies. To the best of my belief, he had not asingle female friend. He was not on intimate terms even with his sister,Mrs. Wilson."

  "Very remarkable," mused Marchmont; "most remarkable. But, perhaps, youcan tell us, Dr. Thorndyke, who this woman was?"

  "I think," replied Thorndyke, "that the next item of evidence willenable you to form an opinion for yourselves. I only obtained ityesterday, and, as it made my case quite complete, I wrote off to youimmediately. It is the statement of Joseph Ridley, another cabman, andunfortunately, a rather dull, unobservant fellow, unlike Wilkins. He hasnot much to tell us, but what little he has is highly instructive. Hereis the statement, signed by the deponent and witnessed by me:

  "'My name is Joseph Ridley. I am the driver of a four-wheeled cab. Onthe fourteenth of March, the day of the great fog, I was waiting atVauxhall Station, where I had just set down a fare. About five o'clock alady came and told me to drive over to Upper Kennington Lane to take upa passenger. She was a middle-sized woman. I could not tell what her agewas, or what she was like, because her head was wrapped up in a sort ofknitted, woollen veil to keep out the fog. I did not notice how she wasdressed. She got into the cab and I led the horse over to UpperKennington Lane and a little way up the lane, until the lady tapped atthe front window for me to stop.

  "'She got out of the cab and told me to wait. Then she went away anddisappeared in the fog. Presently a lady and gentleman came from thedirection in which she had gone. The lady looked like the same lady, butI won't answer to that. Her head was wrapped up in the same kind o
f veilor shawl, and I noticed that she had on a dark coloured mantle withbead fringe on it.

  "'The gentleman was clean shaved and wore spectacles, and he stooped agood deal. I can't say whether his sight was good or bad. He helped thelady into the cab and told me to drive to the Great Northern Station,King's Cross. Then he got in himself and I drove off. I got to thestation about a quarter to six and the lady and gentleman got out. Thegentleman paid my fare and they both went into the station. I did notnotice anything unusual about either of them. Directly after they hadgone, I got a fresh fare and drove away.'

  "That," Thorndyke concluded, "is Joseph Ridley's statement; and I thinkit will enable you to give a meaning to the other facts that I haveoffered for your consideration."

  "I am not so sure about that," said Marchmont. "It is all exceedinglymysterious. Your suggestion is, of course, that the woman who came toNew Inn in the cab was Mrs. Schallibaum!"

  "Not at all," replied Thorndyke. "My suggestion is that the woman wasJeffrey Blackmore."

  There was deathly silence for a few moments. We were all absolutelythunderstruck, and sat gaping at Thorndyke in speechless-astonishment.Then--Mr. Winwood fairly bounced out of his chair.

  "But--my--good--sir!" he screeched. "Jeffrey Blackmore was with her atthe time!"

  "Naturally," replied Thorndyke, "my suggestion implies that the personwho was with her was not Jeffrey Blackmore."

  "But he was!" bawled Winwood. "The porter saw him!"

  "The porter saw a person whom he believed to be Jeffrey Blackmore. Isuggest that the porter's belief was erroneous."

  "Well," snapped Winwood, "perhaps you can prove that it was. I don't seehow you are going to; but perhaps you can."

  He subsided once more into his chair and glared defiantly at Thorndyke.

  "You seemed," said Stephen, "to suggest some connection between the sickman, Graves, and my uncle. I noted it at the time, but put it aside asimpossible. Was I right. Did you mean to suggest any connection?"

  "I suggest something more than a connection. I suggest identity. Myposition is that the sick man, Graves, was your uncle."

  "From Dr. Jervis's description," said Stephen, "this man must have beenvery like my uncle. Both were blind in the right eye and had very poorvision with the left; and my uncle certainly used brushes of the kindthat you have shown us, when writing in the Japanese character, for Ihave watched him and admired his skill; but--"

  "But," said Marchmont, "there is the insuperable objection that, at thevery time when this man was lying sick in Kennington Lane, Mr. Jeffreywas living at New Inn."

  "What evidence is there of that?" asked Thorndyke.

  "Evidence!" Marchmont exclaimed impatiently. "Why, my dear sir--"

  He paused suddenly, and, leaning forward, regarded Thorndyke with a newand rather startled expression.

  "You mean to suggest--" he began.

  "I suggest that Jeffrey Blackmore never lived at New Inn at all."

  For the moment, Marchmont seemed absolutely paralysed by astonishment.

  "This is an amazing proposition!" he exclaimed, at length. "Yet thething is certainly not impossible, for, now that you recall the fact, Irealize that no one who had known him previously--excepting his brother,John--ever saw him at the inn. The question of identity was neverraised."

  "Excepting," said Mr. Winwood, "in regard to the body; which wascertainly that of Jeffrey Blackmore."

  "Yes, yes. Of course," said Marchmont. "I had forgotten that for themoment. The body was identified beyond doubt. You don't dispute theidentity of the body, do you?"

  "Certainly not," replied Thorndyke.

  Here Mr. Winwood grasped his hair with both hands and stuck his elbowson his knees, while Marchmont drew forth a large handkerchief and moppedhis forehead. Stephen Blackmore looked from one to the otherexpectantly, and finally said:

  "If I might make a suggestion, it would be that, as Dr. Thorndyke hasshown us the pieces now of the puzzle, he should be so kind as to putthem together for our information."

  "Yes," agreed Marchmont, "that will be the best plan. Let us have theargument, Doctor, and any additional evidence that you possess."

  "The argument," said Thorndyke, "will be a rather long one, as the dataare so numerous, and there are some points in verification on which Ishall have to dwell in some detail. We will have some coffee to clearour brains, and then I will bespeak your patience for what may seem likea rather prolix demonstration."

  Chapter XVI

  An Exposition and a Tragedy

  "You may have wondered," Thorndyke commenced, when he had poured out thecoffee and handed round the cups, "what induced me to undertake theminute investigation of so apparently simple and straightforward a case.Perhaps I had better explain that first and let you see what was thereal starting-point of the inquiry.

  "When you, Mr. Marchmont and Mr. Stephen, introduced the case to me, Imade a very brief precis of the facts as you presented them, and ofthese there were one or two which immediately attracted my attention. Inthe first place, there was the will. It was a very strange will. It wasperfectly unnecessary. It contained no new matter; it expressed nochanged intentions; it met no new circumstances, as known to thetestator. In short it was not really a new will at all, but merely arepetition of the first one, drafted in different and less suitablelanguage. It differed only in introducing a certain ambiguity from whichthe original was free. It created the possibility that, in certaincircumstances, not known to or anticipated by the testator, JohnBlackmore might become the principal beneficiary, contrary to theobvious wishes of the testator.

  "The next point that impressed me was the manner of Mrs. Wilson's death.She died of cancer. Now people do not die suddenly and unexpectedly ofcancer. This terrible disease stands almost alone in that it marks outits victim months in advance. A person who has an incurable cancer is aperson whose death may be predicted with certainty and its date fixedwithin comparatively narrow limits.

  "And now observe the remarkable series of coincidences that are broughtinto light when we consider this peculiarity of the disease. Mrs. Wilsondied on the twelfth of March of this present year. Mr. Jeffrey's secondwill was signed on the twelfth of November of last year; at a time, thatis to say, when the existence of cancer must have been known to Mrs.Wilson's doctor, and might have been known to any of her relatives whochose to inquire after her.

  "Then you will observe that the remarkable change in Mr. Jeffrey'shabits coincides in the most singular way with the same events. Thecancer must have been detectable as early as September of last year;about the time, in fact, at which Mrs. Wilson made her will. Mr. Jeffreywent to the inn at the beginning of October. From that time his habitswere totally changed, and I can demonstrate to you that a change--not agradual, but an abrupt change--took place in the character of hissignature.

  "In short, the whole of this peculiar set of circumstances--the changein Jeffrey's habits, the change in his signature, and the execution ofhis strange will--came into existence about the time when Mrs. Wilsonwas first known to be suffering from cancer.

  "This struck me as a very suggestive fact.

  "Then there is the extraordinarily opportune date of Mr. Jeffrey'sdeath. Mrs. Wilson died on the twelfth of March. Mr. Jeffrey was founddead on the fifteenth of March, having apparently died on thefourteenth, on which day he was seen alive. If he had died only threedays sooner, he would have predeceased Mrs. Wilson, and her propertywould never have devolved on him at all; while, if he had lived only aday or two longer, he would have learned of her death and wouldcertainly have made a new will or codicil in his nephew's favour.

  "Circumstances, therefore, conspired in the most singular manner infavour of John Blackmore.

  "But there is yet another coincidence. Jeffrey's body was found, by themerest chance, the day after his death. But it might have remainedundiscovered for weeks, or even months; and if it had, it would havebeen impossible to fix the date of his death. Then Mrs. Wilson's nextof kin would certainly have contested Joh
n Blackmore's claim--andprobably with success--on the ground that Jeffrey died before Mrs.Wilson. But all this uncertainty is provided for by the circumstancethat Mr. Jeffrey paid his rent personally--and prematurely--to theporter on the fourteenth of March, thus establishing beyond question thefact that he was alive on that date; and yet further, in case theporter's memory should be untrustworthy or his statement doubted,Jeffrey furnished a signed and dated document--the cheque--which couldbe produced in a court to furnish incontestable proof of survival.

  "To sum up this part of the evidence. Here was a will which enabled JohnBlackmore to inherit the fortune of a man who, almost certainly, had nointention of bequeathing it to him. The wording of that will seemed tobe adjusted to the peculiarities of Mrs. Wilson's disease; and the deathof the testator occurred under a peculiar set of circumstances whichseemed to be exactly adjusted to the wording of the will. Or, to put itin another way: the wording of the will and the time, the manner and thecircumstances of the testator's death, all seemed to be preciselyadjusted to the fact that the approximate date of Mrs. Wilson's deathwas known some months before it occurred.

  "Now you must admit that this compound group of coincidences, allconspiring to a single end--the enrichment of John Blackmore--has a verysingular appearance. Coincidences are common enough in real life; butwe cannot accept too many at a time. My feeling was that there were toomany in this case and that I could not accept them without searchinginquiry."

  Thorndyke paused, and Mr. Marchmont, who had listened with closeattention, nodded, as he glanced at his silent partner.

  "You have stated the case with remarkable clearness," he said; "and I amfree to confess that some of the points that you have raised had escapedmy notice."

  "My first idea," Thorndyke resumed, "was that John Blackmore, takingadvantage of the mental enfeeblement produced by the opium habit, haddictated this will to Jeffrey, It was then that I sought permission toinspect Jeffrey's chambers; to learn what I could about him and to seefor myself whether they presented the dirty and disorderly appearancecharacteristic of the regular opium-smoker's den. But when, during awalk into the City, I thought over the case, it seemed to me that thisexplanation hardly met the facts. Then I endeavoured to think of someother explanation; and looking over my notes I observed two points thatseemed worth considering. One was that neither of the witnesses to thewill was really acquainted with Jeffrey Blackmore; both being strangerswho had accepted his identity on his own statement. The other was thatno one who had previously known him, with the single exception of hisbrother John, had ever seen Jeffrey at the inn.

  "What was the import of these two facts? Probably they had none. Butstill they suggested the desirability of considering the question: Wasthe person who signed the will really Jeffrey Blackmore? The contrarysupposition--that some one had personated Jeffrey and forged hissignature to a false will--seemed wildly improbable, especially in viewof the identification of the body; but it involved no actualimpossibility; and it offered a complete explanation of the, otherwiseinexplicable, coincidences that I have mentioned.

  "I did not, however, for a moment, think that this was the trueexplanation, but I resolved to bear it in mind, to test it when theopportunity arose, and consider it by the light of any fresh facts thatI might acquire.

  "The new facts came sooner than I had expected. That same evening I wentwith Dr. Jervis to New Inn and found Mr. Stephen in the chambers. By himI was informed that Jeffrey was a learned Orientalist, with a quiteexpert knowledge of the cuneiform writing; and even as he was telling methis, I looked over his shoulder and saw a cuneiform inscription hangingon the wall upside down.

  "Now, of this there could be only one reasonable explanation.Disregarding the fact that no one would screw the suspension plates on aframe without ascertaining which was the right way up, and assuming itto be hung up inverted, it was impossible that the misplacement couldhave been overlooked by Jeffrey. He was not blind, though his sight wasdefective. The frame was thirty inches long and the individualcharacters nearly an inch in length--about the size of the D 18 lettersof Snellen's test-types, which can be read by a person of ordinary sightat a distance of fifty-five feet. There was, I repeat, only onereasonable explanation; which was that the person who had inhabitedthose chambers was not Jeffrey Blackmore.

  "This conclusion received considerable support from a fact which Iobserved later, but mention in this place. On examining the soles of theshoes taken from the dead man's feet, I found only the ordinary mud ofthe streets. There was no trace of the peculiar gravelly mud thatadhered to my own boots and Jervis's, and which came from the square ofthe inn. Yet the porter distinctly stated that the deceased, afterpaying the rent, walked back towards his chambers across the square; themud of which should, therefore, have been conspicuous on his shoes.

  "Thus, in a moment, a wildly speculative hypothesis had assumed a highdegree of probability.

  "When Mr. Stephen was gone, Jervis and I looked over the chambersthoroughly; and then another curious fact came to light. On the wallwere a number of fine Japanese colour-prints, all of which showed recentdamp-spots. Now, apart from the consideration that Jeffrey, who had beenat the trouble and expense of collecting these valuable prints, wouldhardly have allowed them to rot on his walls, there arose the question:How came they to be damp? There was a gas stove in the room, and a gasstove has at least the virtue of preserving a dry atmosphere. It waswinter weather, when the stove would naturally be pretty constantlyalight. How came the walls to be so damp? The answer seemed to be thatthe stove had not been constantly alight, but had been lighted onlyoccasionally. This suggestion was borne out by a further examination ofthe rooms. In the kitchen there were practically no stores and hardlyany arrangements even for simple bachelor cooking; the bedroom offeredthe same suggestion; the soap in the wash-stand was shrivelled andcracked; there was no cast-off linen, and the shirts in the drawers,though clean, had the peculiar yellowish, faded appearance that linenacquires when long out of use. In short, the rooms had the appearance ofnot having been lived in at all, but only visited at intervals.

  "Against this view, however, was the statement of the night porter thathe had often seen a light in Jeffrey's sitting-room at one o'clock inthe morning, with the apparent implication that it was then turned out.Now a light may be left in an empty room, but its extinction implies thepresence of some person to extinguish it; unless some automatic devicebe adopted for putting it out at a given time. Such a device--the alarmmovement of a clock, for instance, with a suitable attachment--is asimple enough matter, but my search of the rooms failed to discoveranything of the kind. However, when looking over the drawers in thebedroom, I came upon a large box that had held a considerable quantityof hard stearine candles. There were only a few left, but a flatcandlestick with numerous wick-ends in its socket accounted for theremainder.

  "These candles seemed to dispose of the difficulty. They were notnecessary for ordinary lighting, since gas was laid on in all threerooms. For what purpose, then, were they used, and in such considerablequantities? I subsequently obtained some of the same brand--Price'sstearine candles, six to the pound--and experimented with them. Eachcandle was seven and a quarter inches in length, not counting the coneat the top, and I found that they burned in still air at the rate of afraction over one inch in an hour. We may say that one of these candleswould burn in still air a little over six hours. It would thus bepossible for the person who inhabited these rooms to go away at seveno'clock in the evening and leave a light which would burn until past onein the morning and then extinguish itself. This, of course, was onlysurmise, but it destroyed the significance of the night porter'sstatement.

  "But, if the person who inhabited these chambers was not Jeffrey, whowas he?

  "The answer to that question seemed plain enough. There was only oneperson who had a strong motive for perpetrating a fraud of this kind,and there was only one person to whom it was possible. If this personwas not Jeffrey, he must have been very like Jeffrey; sufficiently li
kefor the body of the one to be mistaken for the body of the other. Forthe production of Jeffrey's body was an essential part of the plan andmust have been contemplated from the first. But the only person whofulfills the conditions is John Blackmore.

  "We have learned from Mr. Stephen that John and Jeffrey, though verydifferent in appearance in later years, were much alike as young men.But when two brothers who are much alike as young men, become unlike inlater life, we shall find that the unlikeness is produced by superficialdifferences and that the essential likeness remains. Thus, in thepresent case, Jeffrey was clean shaved, had bad eyesight, worespectacles and stooped as he walked; John wore a beard and moustache,had good eyesight, did not wear spectacles and had a brisk gait andupright carriage. But supposing John to shave off his beard andmoustache, to put on spectacles and to stoop in his walk, theseconspicuous but superficial differences would vanish and the originallikeness reappear.

  "There is another consideration. John had been an actor and was an actorof some experience. Now, any person can, with some care and practice,make up a disguise; the great difficulty is to support that disguise bya suitable manner and voice. But to an experienced actor this difficultydoes not exist. To him, personation is easy; and, moreover, an actor isprecisely the person to whom the idea of disguise and impersonationwould occur.

  "There is a small item bearing on this point, so small as to be hardlyworth calling evidence, but just worth noting. In the pocket of thewaistcoat taken from the body of Jeffrey I found the stump of a'Contango' pencil; a pencil that is sold for the use of stock dealersand brokers. Now John was an outside broker and might very probably haveused such a pencil, whereas Jeffrey had no connection with the stockmarkets and there is no reason why he should have possessed a pencil ofthis kind. But the fact is merely suggestive; it has no evidentialvalue.

  "A more important inference is to be drawn from the collectedsignatures. I have remarked that the change in the signature occurredabruptly, with one or two alterations of manner, last September, andthat there are two distinct forms with no intermediate varieties. Thisis, in itself, remarkable and suspicious. But a remark made by Mr.Britton furnishes a really valuable piece of evidence on the point weare now considering. He admitted that the character of the signature hadundergone a change, but observed that the change did not affect theindividual or personal character of the writing. This is very important;for handwriting is, as it were, an extension of the personality of thewriter. And just as a man to some extent snares his personality with hisnear blood-relations in the form of family resemblances, so hishandwriting often shows a subtle likeness to that of his near relatives.You must have noticed, as I have, how commonly the handwriting of onebrother resembles that of another, and in just this peculiar and subtleway. The inference, then, from Mr. Britton's statement is, that if thesignature of the will was forged, it was probably forged by a relativeof the deceased. But the only relative in question is his brother John.

  "All the facts, therefore, pointed to John Blackmore as the person whooccupied these chambers, and I accordingly adopted that view as aworking hypothesis."

  "But this was all pure speculation," objected Mr. Winwood.

  "Not speculation," said Thorndyke. "Hypothesis. It was ordinaryinductive reasoning such as we employ in scientific research. I startedwith the purely tentative hypothesis that the person who signed the willwas not Jeffrey Blackmore. I assumed this; and I may say that I did notbelieve it at the time, but merely adopted it as a proposition that wasworth testing. I accordingly tested it, 'Yes?' or 'No?' with each newfact; but as each new fact said 'Yes,' and no fact said definitely 'No,'its probability increased rapidly by a sort of geometrical progression.The probabilities multiplied into one another. It is a perfectly soundmethod, for one knows that if a hypothesis be true, it will lead one,sooner or later, to a crucial fact by which its truth can bedemonstrated.

  "To resume our argument. We have now set up the proposition that JohnBlackmore was the tenant of New Inn and that he was personating Jeffrey.Let us reason from this and see what it leads to.

  "If the tenant of New Inn was John, then Jeffrey must be elsewhere,since his concealment at the inn was clearly impossible. But he couldnot have been far away, for he had to be producible at short noticewhenever the death of Mrs. Wilson should make the production of hisbody necessary. But if he was producible, his person must have been inthe possession or control of John. He could not have been at large, forthat would have involved the danger of his being seen and recognized. Hecould not have been in any institution or place where he would be incontact with strangers. Then he must be in some sort of confinement. Butit is difficult to keep an adult in confinement in an ordinary house.Such a proceeding would involve great risk of discovery and the use ofviolence which would leave traces on the body, to be observed andcommented on at the inquest. What alternative method could be suggested?

  "The most obvious method is that of keeping the prisoner in such a stateof debility as would confine him to his bed. But such debility could beproduced by only starvation, unsuitable food, or chronic poisoning. Ofthese alternatives, poisoning is much more exact, more calculable in itseffect and more under control. The probabilities, then, were in favourof chronic poisoning.

  "Having reached this stage, I recalled a singular case which Jervis hadmentioned to me and which seemed to illustrate this method. On ourreturn home I asked him for further particulars, and he then gave me avery detailed description of the patient and the circumstances. Theupshot was rather startling. I had looked on his case as merelyillustrative, and wished to study it for the sake of the suggestionsthat it might offer. But when I had heard his account, I began tosuspect that there was something more than mere parallelism of method.It began to look as if his patient, Mr. Graves, might actually beJeffrey Blackmore.

  "The coincidences were remarkable. The general appearance of the patienttallied completely with Mr. Stephen's description of his uncle Jeffrey.The patient had a tremulous iris in his right eye and had clearlysuffered from dislocation of the crystalline lens. But from Mr.Stephen's account of his uncle's sudden loss of sight in the right eyeafter a fall, I judged that Jeffrey had also suffered from dislocationof the lens and therefore had a tremulous iris in the right eye. Thepatient, Graves, evidently had defective vision in his left eye, asproved by the marks made behind his ears by the hooked side-bars of hisspectacles; for it is only on spectacles that are intended for constantuse that we find hooked side-bars. But Jeffrey had defective vision inhis left eye and wore spectacles constantly. Lastly, the patient Graveswas suffering from chronic morphine poisoning, and morphine was found inthe body of Jeffrey.

  "Once more, it appeared to me that there were too many coincidences.

  "The question as to whether Graves and Jeffrey were identical admittedof fairly easy disproof; for if Graves was still alive, he could not beJeffrey. It was an important question and I resolved to test it withoutdelay. That night, Jervis and I plotted out the chart, and on thefollowing morning we located the house. But it was empty and to let.The birds had flown, and we failed to discover whither they had gone.

  "However, we entered the house and explored. I have told you about themassive bolts and fastenings that we found on the bedroom doors andwindow, showing that the room had been used as a prison. I have told youof the objects that we picked out of the dust-heap under the grate. Ofthe obvious suggestion offered by the Japanese brush and the bottle of'spirit gum' or cement, I need not speak now; but I must trouble youwith some details concerning the broken spectacles. For here we had comeupon the crucial fact to which, as I have said, all sound inductivereasoning brings one sooner or later.

  "The spectacles were of a rather peculiar pattern. The frames were ofthe type invented by Mr. Stopford of Moorfields and known by his name.The right eye-piece was fitted with plain glass, as is usual in the caseof a blind, or useless, eye. It was very much shattered, but itscharacter was obvious. The glass of the left eye was much thicker andfortunately less damaged, so that
I was able accurately to test itsrefraction.

  "When I reached home, I laid the pieces of the spectacles together,measured the frames very carefully, tested the left eye-glass, and wrotedown a full description such as would have been given by the surgeon tothe spectacle-maker. Here it is, and I will ask you to note itcarefully.

  "'Spectacles for constant use. Steel frame, Stopford's pattern, curlsides, broad bridge with gold lining. Distance between centres, 6.2centimetres; extreme length of side-bars, 13.3 centimetres.

  "'Right eye plain glass.

  "'Left eye -5.75 D. spherical ------------------- -3.25 D. cylindrical axis 35 deg..'

  "The spectacles, you see, were of a very distinctive character andseemed to offer a good chance of identification. Stopford's frames are,I believe, made by only one firm of opticians in London, Parry & Cuxtonof Regent Street. I therefore wrote to Mr. Cuxton, who knows me, askinghim if he had supplied spectacles to the late Jeffrey Blackmore,Esq.--here is a copy of my letter--and if so, whether he would mindletting me have a full description of them, together with the name ofthe oculist who prescribed them.

  "He replied in this letter, which is pinned to the copy of mine, that,about four years ago, he supplied a pair of glasses to Mr. JeffreyBlackmore, and described them thus: 'The spectacles were for constantuse and had steel frames of Stopford's pattern with curl sides, thelength of the side-bars including the curled ends being 13.3 cm. Thebridge was broad with a gold lining-plate, shaped as shown by theenclosed tracing from the diagram on the prescription. Distance betweencentres 6.2 cm.

  "'Right eye plain glass.

  "'Left eye -5.75 D. spherical ------------------- -3.25 D. cylindrical, axis 35 deg..'

  "'The spectacles were prescribed by Mr. Hindley of Wimpole Street.'

  "You see that Mr. Cuxton's description is identical with mine. However,for further confirmation, I wrote to Mr. Hindley, asking certainquestions, to which he replied thus:

  "'You are quite right. Mr. Jeffrey Blackmore had a tremulous iris in hisright eye (which was practically blind), due to dislocation of the lens.The pupils were rather large; certainly not contracted.'

  "Here, then, we have three important facts. One is that the spectaclesfound by us at Kennington Lane were undoubtedly Jeffrey's; for it is asunlikely that there exists another pair of spectacles exactly identicalwith those as that there exists another face exactly like Jeffrey'sface. The second fact is that the description of Jeffrey talliescompletely with that of the sick man, Graves, as given by Dr. Jervis;and the third is that when Jeffrey was seen by Mr. Hindley, there was nosign of his being addicted to the taking of morphine. The first andsecond facts, you will agree, constitute complete identification."

  "Yes," said Marchmont; "I think we must admit the identification asbeing quite conclusive, though the evidence is of a kind that is morestriking to the medical than to the legal mind."

  "You will not have that complaint to make against the next item ofevidence," said Thorndyke. "It is after the lawyer's own heart, as youshall hear. A few days ago I wrote to Mr. Stephen asking him if hepossessed a recent photograph of his uncle Jeffrey. He had one, and hesent it to me by return. This portrait I showed to Dr. Jervis and askedhim if he had ever seen the person it represented. After examining itattentively, without any hint whatever from me, he identified it as theportrait of the sick man, Graves."

  "Indeed!" exclaimed Marchmont. "This is most important. Are you preparedto swear to the identity, Dr. Jervis?"

  "I have not the slightest doubt," I replied, "that the portrait is thatof Mr. Graves."

  "Excellent!" said Marchmont, rubbing his hands gleefully; "this will bemuch more convincing to a jury. Pray go on, Dr. Thorndyke."

  "That," said Thorndyke, "completes the first part of my investigation.We had now reached a definite, demonstrable fact; and that fact, as yousee, disposed at once of the main question--the genuineness of the will.For if the man at Kennington Lane was Jeffrey Blackmore, then the man atNew Inn was not. But it was the latter who had signed the will.Therefore the will was not signed by Jeffrey Blackmore; that is to say,it was a forgery. The case was complete for the purposes of the civilproceedings; the rest of my investigations had reference to the criminalprosecution that was inevitable. Shall I proceed, or is your interestconfined to the will?"

  "Hang the will!" exclaimed Stephen. "I want to hear how you propose tolay hands on the villain who murdered poor old uncle Jeffrey--for Isuppose he did murder him?"

  "I think there is no doubt of it," replied Thorndyke.

  "Then," said Marchmont, "we will hear the rest of the argument, if youplease."

  "Very well," said Thorndyke. "As the evidence stands, we have provedthat Jeffrey Blackmore was a prisoner in the house in Kennington Laneand that some one was personating him at New Inn. That some one, we haveseen, was, in all probability, John Blackmore. We now have to considerthe man Weiss. Who was he? and can we connect him in any way with NewInn?

  "We may note in passing that Weiss and the coachman were apparently oneand the same person. They were never seen together. When Weiss waspresent, the coachman was not available even for so urgent a service asthe obtaining of an antidote to the poison. Weiss always appeared sometime after Jervis's arrival and disappeared some time before hisdeparture, in each case sufficiently long to allow of a change ofdisguise. But we need not labour the point, as it is not of primaryimportance.

  "To return to Weiss. He was clearly heavily disguised, as we see by hisunwillingness to show himself even by the light of a candle. But thereis an item of positive evidence on this point which is important fromhaving other bearings. It is furnished by the spectacles worn by Weiss,of which you have heard Jervis's description. These spectacles had verypeculiar optical properties. When you looked through them they had theproperties of plain glass; when you looked at them they had theappearance of lenses. But only one kind of glass possesses theseproperties; namely, that which, like an ordinary watch-glass, hascurved, parallel surfaces. But for what purpose could a person wear'watch-glass' spectacles? Clearly, not to assist his vision. The onlyalternative is disguise.

  "The properties of these spectacles introduce a very curious andinteresting feature into the case. To the majority of persons, thewearing of spectacles for the purpose of disguise or personation, seemsa perfectly simple and easy proceeding. But, to a person of normaleyesight, it is nothing of the kind. For, if he wears spectacles suitedfor long sight he cannot see distinctly through them at all; while, ifhe wears concave, or near sight, glasses, the effort to see through themproduces such strain and fatigue that his eyes become disabledaltogether. On the stage the difficulty is met by using spectacles ofplain window-glass, but in real life this would hardly do; the'property' spectacles would be detected at once and give rise tosuspicion.

  "The personator is therefore in this dilemma: if he wears actualspectacles, he cannot see through them; if he wears sham spectacles ofplain glass, his disguise will probably be detected. There is only oneway out of the difficulty, and that not a very satisfactory one; but Mr.Weiss seems to have adopted it in lieu of a better. It is that of usingwatch-glass spectacles such as I have described.

  "Now, what do we learn from these very peculiar glasses? In the firstplace they confirm our opinion that Weiss was wearing a disguise. But,for use in a room so very dimly lighted, the ordinary stage spectacleswould have answered quite well. The second inference is, then, thatthese spectacles were prepared to be worn under more trying conditionsof light--out of doors, for instance. The third inference is that Weisswas a man with normal eyesight; for otherwise he could have worn realspectacles suited to the state of his vision.

  "These are inferences by the way, to which we may return. But theseglasses furnish a much more important suggestion. On the floor of thebedroom at New Inn I found some fragments of glass which had beentrodden on. By joining one or two of them together, we have been able tomake out the general character of the object of which they formed parts
.My assistant--who was formerly a watch-maker--judged that object to bethe thin crystal glass of a lady's watch, and this, I think, wasJervis's opinion. But the small part which remains of the original edgefurnishes proof in two respects that this was not a watch-glass. In thefirst place, on taking a careful tracing of this piece of the edge, Ifound that its curve was part of an ellipse; but watch-glasses,nowadays, are invariably circular. In the second place, watch-glassesare ground on the edge to a single bevel to snap into the bezel orframe; but the edge of this object was ground to a double bevel, likethe edge of a spectacle-glass, which fits into a groove in the frame andis held by the side-bar screw. The inevitable inference was that thiswas a spectacle-glass. But, if so, it was part of a pair of spectaclesidentical in properties with those worn by Mr. Weiss.

  "The importance of this conclusion emerges when we consider theexceptional character of Mr. Weiss's spectacles. They were not merelypeculiar or remarkable; they were probably unique. It is exceedinglylikely that there is not in the entire world another similar pair ofspectacles. Whence the finding of these fragments of glass in thebedroom establishes a considerable probability that Mr. Weiss was, atsome time, in the chambers at New Inn.

  "And now let us gather up the threads of this part of the argument. Weare inquiring into the identity of the man Weiss. Who was he?

  "In the first place, we find him committing a secret crime from whichJohn Blackmore alone will benefit. This suggests the prima-facieprobability that he was John Blackmore.

  "Then we find that he was a man of normal eyesight who was wearingspectacles for the purpose of disguise. But the tenant of New Inn, whomwe have seen to be, almost certainly, John Blackmore--and whom we will,for the present, assume to have been John Blackmore--was a man withnormal eyesight who wore spectacles for disguise.

  "John Blackmore did not reside at New Inn, but at some place withineasy reach of it. But Weiss resided at a place within easy reach of NewInn.

  "John Blackmore must have had possession and control of the person ofJeffrey. But Weiss had possession and control of the person of Jeffrey.

  "Weiss wore spectacles of a certain peculiar and probably uniquecharacter. But portions of such spectacles were found in the chambers atNew Inn.

  "The overwhelming probability, therefore, is that Weiss and the tenantof New Inn were one and the same person; and that that person was JohnBlackmore."

  "That," said Mr. Winwood, "is a very plausible argument. But, youobserve, sir, that it contains an undistributed middle term."

  Thorndyke smiled genially. I think he forgave Winwood everything forthat remark.

  "You are quite right, sir," he said. "It does. And, for that reason, thedemonstration is not absolute. But we must not forget, what logiciansseem occasionally to overlook: that the 'undistributed middle,' while itinterferes with absolute proof, may be quite consistent with a degree ofprobability that approaches very near to certainty. Both the Bertillonsystem and the English fingerprint system involve a process of reasoningin which the middle term is undistributed. But the great probabilitiesare accepted in practice as equivalent to certainties."

  Mr. Winwood grunted a grudging assent, and Thorndyke resumed:

  "We have now furnished fairly conclusive evidence on three heads: wehave proved that the sick man, Graves, was Jeffrey Blackmore; that thetenant of New Inn was John Blackmore; and that the man Weiss was alsoJohn Blackmore. We now have to prove that John and Jeffrey were togetherin the chambers at New Inn on the night of Jeffrey's death.

  "We know that two persons, and two persons only, came from KenningtonLane to New Inn. But one of those persons was the tenant of NewInn--that is, John Blackmore. Who was the other? Jeffrey is known by usto have been at Kennington Lane. His body was found on the followingmorning in the room at New Inn. No third person is known to have comefrom Kennington Lane; no third person is known to have arrived at NewInn. The inference, by exclusion, is that the second person--thewoman--was Jeffrey.

  "Again; Jeffrey had to be brought from Kennington to the inn by John.But John was personating Jeffrey and was made up to resemble him veryclosely. If Jeffrey were undisguised the two men would be almost exactlyalike; which would be very noticeable in any case and suspicious afterthe death of one of them. Therefore Jeffrey would have to be disguisedin some way; and what disguise could be simpler and more effective thanthe one that I suggest was used?

  "Again; it was unavoidable that some one--the cabman--should know thatJeffrey was not alone when he came to the inn that night. If the facthad leaked out and it had become known that a man had accompanied him tohis chambers, some suspicion might have arisen, and that suspicion wouldhave pointed to John, who was directly interested in his brother'sdeath. But if it had transpired that Jeffrey was accompanied by a woman,there would have been less suspicion, and that suspicion would not havepointed to John Blackmore.

  "Thus all the general probabilities are in favour of the hypothesis thatthis woman was Jeffrey Blackmore. There is, however, an item of positiveevidence that strongly supports this view. When I examined the clothingof the deceased, I found on the trousers a horizontal crease on each legas if the trousers had been turned up half-way to the knees. Thisappearance is quite understandable if we suppose that the trousers wereworn under a skirt and were turned up so that they should not beaccidentally seen. Otherwise it is quite incomprehensible."

  "Is it not rather strange," said Marchmont, "that Jeffrey should haveallowed himself to be dressed up in this remarkable manner?"

  "I think not," replied Thorndyke. "There is no reason to suppose that heknew how he was dressed. You have heard Jervis's description of hiscondition; that of a mere automaton. You know that without hisspectacles he was practically blind, and that he could not have wornthem since we found them at the house in Kennington Lane. Probably hishead was wrapped up in the veil, and the skirt and mantle put onafterwards; but, in any case, his condition rendered him practicallydevoid of will power. That is all the evidence I have to prove that theunknown woman was Jeffrey. It is not conclusive but it is convincingenough for our purpose, seeing that the case against John Blackmore doesnot depend upon it."

  "Your case against him is on the charge of murder, I presume?" saidStephen.

  "Undoubtedly. And you will notice that the statements made by thesupposed Jeffrey to the porter, hinting at suicide, are now importantevidence. By the light of what we know, the announcement of intendedsuicide becomes the announcement of intended murder. It conclusivelydisproves what it was intended to prove; that Jeffrey died by his ownhand."

  "Yes, I see that," said Stephen, and then after a pause he asked: "Didyou identify Mrs. Schallibaum? You have told us nothing about her."

  "I have considered her as being outside the case as far as I amconcerned," replied Thorndyke. "She was an accessory; my business waswith the principal. But, of course, she will be swept up in the net. Theevidence that convicts John Blackmore will convict her. I have nottroubled about her identity. If John Blackmore is married, she isprobably his wife. Do you happen to know if he is married?"

  "Yes; but Mrs. John Blackmore is not much like Mrs. Schallibaum,excepting that she has a cast in the left eye. She is a dark woman withvery heavy eyebrows."

  "That is to say that she differs from Mrs. Schallibaum in thosepeculiarities that can be artificially changed and resembles her in theone feature that is unchangeable. Do you know if her Christian namehappens to be Pauline?"

  "Yes, it is. She was a Miss Pauline Hagenbeck, a member of an Americantheatrical company. What made you ask?"

  "The name which Jervis heard poor Jeffrey struggling to pronounce seemedto me to resemble Pauline more than any other name."

  "There is one little point that strikes me," said Marchmont. "Is it notrather remarkable that the porter should have noticed no differencebetween the body of Jeffrey and the living man whom he knew by sight,and who must, after all, have been distinctly different in appearance?"

  "I am glad you raised that question," Thorndyke replied, "fo
r that verydifficulty presented itself to me at the beginning of the case. But onthinking it over, I decided that it was an imaginary difficulty,assuming, as we do, that there was a good deal of resemblance betweenthe two men. Put yourself in the porter's place and follow his mentalprocesses. He is informed that a dead man is lying on the bed in Mr.Blackmore's rooms. Naturally, he assumes that the dead man is Mr.Blackmore--who, by the way, had hinted at suicide only the night before.With this idea he enters the chambers and sees a man a good deal likeMr. Blackmore and wearing Mr. Blackmore's clothes, lying on Mr.Blackmore's bed. The idea that the body could be that of some otherperson has never entered his mind. If he notes any difference ofappearance he will put that down to the effects of death; for every oneknows that a man dead looks somewhat different from the same man alive.I take it as evidence of great acuteness on the part of John Blackmorethat he should have calculated so cleverly, not only the mental processof the porter, but the erroneous reasoning which every one would base onthe porter's conclusions. For, since the body was actually Jeffrey's,and was identified by the porter as that of his tenant, it has beenassumed by every one that no question was possible as to the identity ofJeffrey Blackmore and the tenant of New Inn."

  There was a brief silence, and then Marchmont asked:

  "May we take it that we have now heard all the evidence?"

  "Yes," replied Thorndyke. "That is my case."

  "Have you given information to the police?" Stephen asked eagerly.

  "Yes. As soon as I had obtained the statement of the cabman, Ridley, andfelt that I had enough evidence to secure a conviction, I called atScotland Yard and had an interview with the Assistant Commissioner. Thecase is in the hands of Superintendent Miller of the CriminalInvestigation Department, a most acute and energetic officer. I havebeen expecting to hear that the warrant has been executed, for Mr.Miller is usually very punctilious in keeping me informed of theprogress of the cases to which I introduce him. We shall hear to-morrow,no doubt."

  "And, for the present," said Marchmont, "the case seems to have passedout of our hands."

  "I shall enter a caveat, all the same," said Mr. Winwood.

  "That doesn't seem very necessary," Marchmont objected. "The evidencethat we have heard is amply sufficient to ensure a conviction and therewill be plenty more when the police go into the case. And a convictionon the charges of forgery and murder would, of course, invalidate thesecond will."

  "I shall enter a caveat, all the same," repeated Mr. Winwood.

  As the two partners showed a disposition to become heated over thisquestion, Thorndyke suggested that they might discuss it at leisure bythe light of subsequent events. Acting on this hint--for it was nowclose upon midnight--our visitors prepared to depart; and were, in fact,just making their way towards the door when the bell rang. Thorndykeflung open the door, and, as he recognized his visitor, greeted him withevident satisfaction.

  "Ha! Mr. Miller; we were just speaking of you. These gentlemen are Mr.Stephen Blackmore and his solicitors, Mr. Marchmont and Mr. Winwood. Youknow Dr. Jervis, I think."

  The officer bowed to our friends and remarked:

  "I am just in time, it seems. A few minutes more and I should havemissed these gentlemen. I don't know what you'll think of my news."

  "You haven't let that villain escape, I hope," Stephen exclaimed.

  "Well," said the Superintendent, "he is out of my hands and yours too;and so is the woman. Perhaps I had better tell you what has happened."

  "If you would be so kind," said Thorndyke, motioning the officer to achair.

  The superintendent seated himself with the manner of a man who has had along and strenuous day, and forthwith began his story.

  "As soon as we had your information, we procured a warrant for thearrest of both parties, and then I went straight to their flat withInspector Badger and a sergeant. There we learned from the attendantthat they were away from home and were not expected back until to-dayabout noon. We kept a watch on the premises, and this morning, about thetime appointed, a man and a woman, answering to the description, arrivedat the flat. We followed them in and saw them enter the lift, and wewere going to get into the lift too, when the man pulled the rope, andaway they went. There was nothing for us to do but run up the stairs,which we did as fast as we could race; but they got to their landingfirst, and we were only just in time to see them nip in and shut thedoor. However, it seemed that we had them safe enough, for there was nodropping out of the windows at that height; so we sent the sergeant toget a locksmith to pick the lock or force the door, while we kept onringing the bell.

  "About three minutes after the sergeant left, I happened to look out ofthe landing window and saw a hansom pull up opposite the flats. I put myhead out of the window, and, hang me if I didn't see our two friendsgetting into the cab. It seems that there was a small lift inside theflat communicating with the kitchen, and they had slipped down it one ata time.

  "Well, of course, we raced down the stairs like acrobats, but by thetime we got to the bottom the cab was off with a fine start. We ran outinto Victoria Street, and there we could see it half-way down the streetand going like a chariot race. We managed to pick up another hansom andtold the cabby to keep the other one in sight, and away we went like thevery deuce; along Victoria Street and Broad Sanctuary, across ParliamentSquare, over Westminster Bridge and along York Road; we kept the otherbeggar in sight, but we couldn't gain an inch on him. Then we turnedinto Waterloo Station, and, as we were driving up the slope we metanother hansom coming down; and when the cabby kissed his hand andsmiled at us, we guessed that he was the sportsman we had beenfollowing.

  "But there was no time to ask questions. It is an awkward station with alot of different exits, and it looked a good deal as if our quarry hadgot away. However, I took a chance. I remembered that the Southamptonexpress was due to start about this time, and I took a short cut acrossthe lines and made for the platform that it starts from. Just as Badgerand I got to the end, about thirty yards from the rear of the train, wesaw a man and a woman running in front of us. Then the guard blew hiswhistle and the train began to move. The man and the woman managed toscramble into one of the rear compartments and Badger and I raced up theplatform like mad. A porter tried to head us off, but Badger capsizedhim and we both sprinted harder than ever, and just hopped on thefoot-board of the guard's van as the train began to get up speed. Theguard couldn't risk putting us off, so he had to let us into his van,which suited us exactly, as we could watch the train on both sides fromthe look-out. And we did watch, I can tell you; for our friend in fronthad seen us. His head was out of the window as we climbed on to thefoot-board.

  "However, nothing happened until we stopped at Southampton West. There,I need not say, we lost no time in hopping out, for we naturallyexpected our friends to make a rush for the exit. But they didn't.Badger watched the platform, and I kept a look-out to see that theydidn't slip away across the line from the off-side. But still there wasno sign of them. Then I walked up the train to the compartment which Ihad seen them enter. And there they were, apparently fast asleep in thecorner by the off-side window, the man leaning back with his mouth openand the woman resting against him with her head on his shoulder. Shegave me quite a turn when I went in to look at them, for she had hereyes half-closed and seemed to be looking round at me with a mosthorrible expression; but I found afterwards that the peculiar appearanceof looking round was due to the cast in her eye."

  "They were dead, I suppose?" said Thorndyke.

  "Yes, sir. Stone dead; and I found these on the floor of the carriage."

  He held up two tiny yellow glass tubes, each labelled "Hypodermictabloids. Aconitine Nitrate gr. 1/640."

  "Ha!" exclaimed Thorndyke, "this fellow was well up in alkaloidalpoisons, it seems; and they appear to have gone about prepared foremergencies. These tubes each contained twenty tabloids, a thirty-secondof a grain altogether, so we may assume that about twelve times themedicinal dose was swallowed. Death must have occurred in a few m
inutes,and a merciful death too."

  "A more merciful death than they deserved," exclaimed Stephen, "when onethinks of the misery and suffering that they inflicted on poor old uncleJeffrey. I would sooner have had them hanged."

  "It's better as it is, sir," said Miller. "There is no need, now, toraise any questions in detail at the inquest. The publicity of a trialfor murder would have been very unpleasant for you. I wish Dr. Jervishad given the tip to me instead of to that confounded,over-cautious--but there, I mustn't run down my brother officers: andit's easy to be wise after the event.

  "Good night, gentlemen. I suppose this accident disposes of yourbusiness as far as the will is concerned?"

  "I suppose it does," agreed Mr. Winwood. "But I shall enter a caveat,all the same."

  THE END