CHAPTER II
"Six-thirty edition: High Court Judge murdered!"
It was not quite 5 p.m., but the enterprising section of the Londonevening newspapers had their 6.30 editions on sale in the streets. Tosuch a pitch had the policy of giving the public what it wants beenelevated that the halfpenny newspapers were able to give the people ofLondon the news each afternoon a full ninety minutes before theedition was supposed to have left the press. The time of the editionwas boldly printed in the top right-hand corner of each paper as aguarantee of enterprise if not of good faith. On practical enterpriseof this kind does journalism forge ahead. Some people who have beenbred up in a conservative atmosphere sneer at such journalisticenterprise. They affect to regard as unreliable the up-to-date newscontained in newspapers which are unable to tell the truth about thehands of the clock.
From the cries of the news-boys and from the announcements on thenewspaper bills which they displayed, it was assumed by those with agreedy appetite for sensations that a judge of the High Court had beenmurdered on the bench. Such an appetite easily swallowed the difficultycreated by the fact that the Law Courts had been closed for the longvacation. In imagination they saw a dramatic scene in court--thedisappointed demented desperate litigant suddenly drawing a revolver andwith unerring aim shooting the judge through the brain before the deadlyweapon could be wrenched from his hands. But though the sensation createdby the murder of a judge of the High Court was destined to grow and to befed by unexpected developments, the changing phases of which monopolisedpublic attention throughout England on successive occasions, there waslittle in the evening papers to satisfy the appetite for sensation. Injournalistic vernacular "they were late in getting on to it," andtherefore their reference to the crime occupied only a few lines in the"stop press news," beneath some late horse-racing results. The _EveningCourier,_ which was first in the streets with the news, made itsannouncement of the crime in the following brief paragraph:
"The dead body of Sir Horace Fewbanks, the distinguished High Courtjudge, was found by the police at his home, Riversbrook in TantonGardens, Hampstead, to-day. Deceased had been shot through the heart. Thepolice have no doubt that he was murdered."
But the morning papers of the following day did full justice to thesensation. It was the month of August when Parliament is "up," the LawCourts closed for the long vacation, and when everybody who is anybody isout of London for the summer holidays. News was scarce and the papersvied with one another in making the utmost of the murder of a High Courtjudge. Each of the morning papers sent out a man to Hampstead soon afterthe news of the crime reached their offices in the afternoon, and some ofthe more enterprising sent two or three men. Scotland Yard andRiversbrook were visited by a succession of pressmen representing theLondon dailies, the provincial press, and the news agencies.
The two points on which the newspaper accounts of the tragedy laid stresswere the mysterious letter which had been sent to Scotland Yard statingthat Sir Horace Fewbanks had been murdered, and the mystery surroundingthe sudden return of Sir Horace from Scotland to his town house. On thefirst point there was room for much varied speculation. Why wasinformation about the murder sent to Scotland Yard, and why was it sentin a disguised way? If the person who had sent this letter had noconnection with the crime and was anxious to help the police, why had henot gone to Scotland Yard personally and told the detectives all he knewabout the tragedy? If, on the other hand, he was implicated in the crime,why had he informed the police at all?
It would have been to his interest as an accomplice--even if he had beenan unwilling accomplice--to leave the crime undiscovered as long aspossible, so that he and those with whom he had been associated mightmake their escape to another country. But he had sent his letter toScotland Yard within a few hours of the perpetration of the crime, andhad not given the actual murderer time to get out of England. Was he notafraid of the vengeance the actual murderer would endeavour to exact forthis disclosure which would enable the police to take measures to preventhis escape?
No light was thrown on the cause of the murdered man's sudden return fromgrouse-shooting in Scotland. The newspaper accounts, though they differedgreatly in their statements, surmises, and suggestions concerning thetragedy, agreed on the point that Sir Horace had been a keen sportsmanand was a very fine shot. In years past he had made a practice ofspending the early part of the long vacation in Scotland, going there forthe opening of the grouse season on the 12th of August. This year he hadbeen one of a party of five who had rented Craigleith Hall in the WesternHighlands, and after five days' shooting he had announced that he had togo to London on urgent business, but would return in the course of a weekor less. It was suggested in some of the newspaper accounts that anexplanation of the cause of his return might throw some light on themurder. Inquiries were being made at Craigleith Hall to ascertain thereason for his journey to London, or whether any telegram had beenreceived by him previous to his departure.
The fact that one of the windows on the ground floor of Riversbrook hadbeen found open was regarded as evidence that the murderer had brokeninto the house. Imprints of footsteps had been found in the groundoutside the window, and the police had taken several casts of these; butwhether the man who had broken into the house with the intention ofcommitting burglary or murder was a matter on which speculation differed.If the murderer was a criminal who had broken into the house with theintention of committing a burglary, there could be no connection betweenthe return of Sir Horace Fewbanks from Scotland and his murder. Theburglary had probably been arranged in the belief that the house wasempty, Sir Horace having sent the servants away to his country house inDellmere a week before. But if the murderer was a burglar he had stolennothing and had not even collected any articles for removal. The onlything that was known to be missing was the dead man's pocket-book, butthere was nothing to prove that the murderer had stolen it. It was quitepossible that it had been lost or mislaid by Sir Horace; it was evenpossible that it had been stolen from him in the train during his journeyfrom Scotland.
It might be that while prowling through the rooms after breaking into thehouse, and before he had collected any goods for removal, the burglar hadcome unexpectedly on Sir Horace, and after shooting him had fled from thehouse. Only as a last resort to prevent capture did burglars commitmurder. Had Sir Horace been shot while attempting to seize the intruder?The position in which the body was found did not support that theory. Twoshots had been fired, the first of which had missed its victim, andentered the wall of the library. Evidently the murdered man had been hitby the second while attempting to leave the room. It was ingeniouslysuggested by the _Daily Record_ that the murderer was a criminal whoknew Sir Horace, and was known to him as a man who had been before him atOld Bailey. This would account for Sir Horace being ruthlessly shot downwithout having made any attempt to seize the intruder. The burglar wouldhave felt on seeing Sir Horace in the room that he was identified, andthat the only way of escaping ultimate arrest by the police was to killthe man who could put the police on his track. Mr. Justice Fewbanks hadhad the reputation of being a somewhat severe judge, and it was possiblethat some of the criminals who had been sentenced by him at Old Baileyentertained a grudge against him.
The question of when the murder was committed was regarded as important.Dr. Slingsby, of the Home Office, who had examined the body shortly afterit was discovered by the police, was of opinion that death had takenplace at least twelve hours before and probably longer than that. Hisopinion on this point lent support to the theory that the murder had beencommitted before midnight on Wednesday. It was the _Daily Record_ thatseized on the mystery contained in the facts that the body whendiscovered was fully clothed and that the electric lights were not turnedon. If the murder was committed late at night how came it that there wereno lights in the empty house when the police discovered the body? Had themurderer, after shooting his victim, turned out the lights so that on thefollowing day no suspicion would be created as would be the case ifanyone sa
w lights burning in the house in the day-time? If he had doneso, he was a cool hand. But if the burglar was such a cool hand as tostop to turn out the lights after the murder why did he not also stop tocollect some valuables? Was he afraid that in attempting to get rid ofthem to a "fence" or "drop" he would practically reveal himself as themurderer and so place himself in danger in case the police offered areward for the apprehension of the author of the crime?
If Sir Horace had gone to bed before the murderer entered the house itwould have been natural to expect no lights turned on. But he hadreturned unexpectedly; there were no servants in the house, and there wasno bed ready for him. In any case, if he intended stopping in the emptyhouse instead of going to a hotel he would have been wearing a sleepingsuit when his body was discovered; or, at most, he would be onlypartially dressed if he had got up on hearing somebody moving about thehouse. But the body was fully dressed, even to collar and tie. It wasabsurd to suppose that the victim had been sitting in the darkness whenthe murderer appeared.
Another difficult problem Scotland Yard had to face was the discovery ofthe person who had sent them the news of the murder. How had ScotlandYard's anonymous correspondent learned about the murder, and what werehis motives in informing the police in the way he had done? Was heconnected with the crime? Had the murderer a companion with him when hebroke into Riversbrook for the purpose of burglary? That seemed to be themost probable explanation. The second man had been horrified at themurder, and desired to disassociate himself from it so that he mightescape the gallows. The only alternative was to suppose that the murdererhad confessed his crime to some one, and that his confidant had lost notime in informing the police of the tragedy.
The newspaper accounts of the case threw some light on the private anddomestic affairs of the victim. He was a widower with a grown-updaughter; his wife, a daughter of the late Sir James Goldsworthy, whochanged his ancient family patronymic from Granville to Goldsworthy oninheriting the great fortune of an American kinsman, had died eight yearsbefore. Sir Horace's Hampstead household consisted of a housekeeper,butler, chauffeur, cook, housemaid, kitchenmaid and gardener. With theexception of the butler the servants had been sent the previous week toSir Horace's country house in Dellmere, Sussex. It appeared that MissFewbanks spent most of her time at the country house and came up toLondon but rarely. She was at Dellmere when the murder was committed, andhad been under the impression that her father was in Scotland. Accordingto a report received from the police at Dellmere the first intimationthat Miss Fewbanks had received of the tragic death of her father camefrom them. Naturally, she was prostrated with grief at the tragedy.
The butler who had been left behind in charge of Riversbrook was a mannamed Hill, but he was not in the house on the night of the tragedy. Hewas a married man, and his wife and child lived in Camden Town, whereMrs. Hill kept a confectionery shop. Hill's master had given himpermission to live at home for three weeks while he was in Scotland. Thehouse in Tanton Gardens had been locked up and most of the valuables hadbeen sent to the bank for safe-keeping, but there were enough portablearticles of value in the house to make a good haul for any burglar. Hillhad instructions to visit the house three times a week for the purpose ofseeing that everything was safe and in order. He had inspected the placeon Wednesday morning, and everything was as it had been left when hismaster went to Scotland. Sir Horace Fewbanks had returned to London onWednesday evening, reaching St. Pancras by the 6.30 train. Hill wasunaware that his master was returning, and the first he learned of themurder was the brief announcement in the evening papers on Thursday.