The Dawn of Reckoning (24 page)

The whole day was taken up with the examination and cross-examination of
various witnesses for the prosecution. On the whole the evidence was rather
less exciting, but there were one or two thrills. One was when James
Middleton, an assistant at Maycrafts, Ltd., the Strand gunsmiths, deposed
that on the day before the crime lie sold a quantity of ammunition to the
prisoner. It was special ammunition—a particular kind of
cartridge—that could only be fired from a revolver of the type
possessed by the prisoner. Cross-examined, he admitted that he had recently
sold these cartridges to other purchasers.

Dr. Hedwig Braun was then called. He said that he was one of the
organizers of the new South Pole expedition which had set out in April. So
far back as November, he declared, Dr. Ward had been asked to join the party.
He had been asked several times since, but had declined owing to pressure of
work.

Cross-examined, he said that he was in Christiania on February 27th.

“Would you have been very much surprised to receive a visit from the
prisoner?”

“He and I were friends, and if he had been in Norway I have no doubt we
should have arranged to meet.”

“Was it too late, on February 28th, to join your party?”

“I am afraid it was. We had everything settled then.”

“Would Dr. Ward have known that it was too late?”

“I cannot say. After his repeated refusal to join us, we naturally did not
trouble him with particulars of our personnel.”

“Would you have refused to take him at so late a date?”

“That would have been a matter for my committee. It would have been very
awkward to place him at such short notice, but of course, we should have done
our best, realizing the sort of man he is.”

At this point there was some cheering in the court, which was sharply
suppressed.

Several other witnesses were then called, including those who saw the
prisoner on the road from Chassingford and Hull. Evidence for the prosecution
was concluded by five o’clock, when the court was again adjourned.

The next day the accused was placed in the witness-box by
his counsel and, after taking the oath, gave his story in full detail. “He is
a tall Siegfried of a man,” wrote Mr. Milner-White, “with deep-set blue-grey
eyes, and firm outstanding chin. Everything about him, and every word that he
uttered, gave an impression of iron control; even before the steel-cold eyes
of the Solicitor-General he did not flinch, but gave his evidence and replied
to cross-examination with calmness, a carefulness, and an unwavering
directness that created the best possible impression.”

His evidence was a complete denial that he knew anything about the crime
at all. As a matter of fact, he said, he did not hear about it until he
reached Bergen, where a short paragraph in a Norwegian paper was translated
for him. The news came as a great shock to him.

Prisoner then, at the request of his counsel, gave a detailed summary of
his movements on the night of February 27th. He was intending, he said, to
catch the midnight train from King’s Cross to Hull, and had packed his
luggage and made all preparations. Then in the morning a telegram came to him
at the hospital. It was from Mr. Monsell, and ran somewhat as follows: “Can
you come Chassingford this evening eight o’clock urgent.” The word “urgent”
made him decide that at all costs he must keep the appointment, yet he knew
that by doing so he might be too late to get back to King’s Cross in time for
the midnight train. He therefore decided to accomplish the whole of the
journey on his motor-cycle. He set out from Bethnal Green about six o’clock
and arrived at Chassingford soon after eight. He was admitted into the study
where he found the deceased writing.

“I expressed surprise that he was not at the Town Hall, waiting for the
count to begin, and he replied that he did not feel very well.

“We chatted pleasantly for some time, and I was beginning to wonder why I
had been sent for so urgently. Suddenly, without any warning, we began to
quarrel.”

Here his lordship interposed: “Really, you must explain yourself a little
more definitely than that.”

Prisoner: “I would rather not go into details about the nature of our
quarrel. As a medical man I am quite certain that my friend was not properly
aware of what he was saying. Of course, his statements and suggestions
naturally provoked me at the time, and it was in the midst of it all that the
butler came in to attend to the fire.”

His lordship: “I would advise you to explain yourself more fully than
that.”

Prisoner was silent. After a pause he went on: “I prefer not to say any
more than I have said. Our quarrel did not last long, for I very soon
discovered that my friend was not quite responsible for his words. We chatted
quite amicably till about half-past ten, when I began to think of going. As I
was about to go out of the room he asked me whether I would mind stepping out
on to the lawn through the window, because the butler had locked the front
door and gone to bed, and it would be a trouble to get the keys. I said I had
no objection at all, so he opened the window and I said good-bye and walked
down to the lane, where I had left my machine. I then rode to Hull, as I had
intended. That is all that happened, so far as I am aware.

“I ought to explain one or two matters. First, the revolver. It is
certainly mine, for I had lent it to Mr. Monsell some weeks before the
election. He said he had received threatening letters, and had suspected
attempts at burglary, and wanted me to lend him an unloaded revolver to
frighten off anybody who might attempt any trouble. As the election was over
when I went to the Hall on the evening of the 27th, I asked for my revolver
back, because I knew I should want it if I joined the polar expedition. My
friend said that he had left it at the Town Hall, and promised to send it to
me the following day.

“It is quite true that I bought the cartridges on the 26th. I wanted to
have a supply in case I joined the expedition. I went in the shop really to
see if they had any of the kind I wanted. Usually they have to be specially
ordered, and when I was told that they had them in stock I thought I would
buy them and make sure.”

The cross-examination began after the lunch interval.

Beginning at the beginning, said Sir Theydon: “Why did you suddenly make
up your mind to join this polar expedition?”

“I wished to, that was all.”

“Why was it necessary to go to Norway? Could you not have written or
cabled?”

“I wanted to see Dr. Braun in person. I knew it was very late to join, but
I thought I was more likely to be successful if I had a personal interview
than if I wrote.”

“You set a high value on your own powers of persuasiveness?”

“A higher value than on my literary powers, certainly.”

“You must have been very keen to join the expedition?”

“Certainly.”

“Now I want to question you about your movements on the evening of the
27th. What is your motor-cycle?”

“A 7½ h.p. Harley-Davison.”

“It is a very fast machine?”

“Yes.”

“Supposing your interview with Mr. Monsell had begun at eight punctually
and had lasted for an hour, there would have been ample time for you to get
back to King’s Cross on your machine in time to catch the midnight
express.”

“No doubt. But how could I know how long the interview would last?”

“Surely a midnight train to catch would have been an excellent reason for
leaving early?”

“I can’t quite see what you are driving at.”

“I will tell you what I am driving at. I am suggesting that there was
really no need for you to motor-cycle to Hull at all, and that, if you had
wanted to, you could easily have caught the train. But you did not want
to.”

“Quite true. I did not want to.”

“Why did you not want to?”

“Because”—answered the prisoner with a slight smile—“because I
prefer motor-cycling to train-riding.”

“You mean that you prefer motor-cycling for six hours on a dark night in
March to travelling by a comfortable boat-express?”

“I do.”

“You ask us to believe that this wild dash through the night, in many
cases at the speed of an express train, was a mere whim on your part—a
mad escapade?”

“If you call it that I shall raise no objection. But I have done far
madder things in the past.”

“No doubt. Now I want you to see where your admission has led you. A
little while ago you said that you decided to travel by motor-cycle because
you might not have time to catch the train. Now you say that you motor-cycled
because you preferred to. Which of those statements is correct?”

“Both.”

“You see no inconsistency?”

“No.”

“Very well, we will leave it at that. No doubt the jury will form their
own opinions as to your consistency or inconsistency. Now let us turn to the
matter of the revolver. You say that Mr. Monsell borrowed it from you because
he had been threatened?”

“Yes.”

“He wrote you a letter asking for it?”

“Yes.”

“Have you got that letter to show the court?”

“No. It is destroyed.”

“Do you always destroy letters?”

“Those that are unimportant, yes.”

“Did anyone beside yourself see that letter?”

“We have called several witnesses who have said that they had no knowledge
of any threats uttered against Mr. Monsell, nor of any attempted burglaries.
Can you give us any details about these threats or about the attempted
burglaries?”

“No.”

“When you lent the revolver, didn’t you question Mr. Monsell about the
threats?”

“No.”

“Weren’t you at all curious?”

“Not very. Mr. Monsell was very nervous and highly-strung, and from the
doctor’s point of view an imagined danger is just as serious as a real one. I
should have lent my revolver just as willingly if I had been quite certain
that the threats were mere hallucinations.”

“Now I want to question you about your visit to the Hall on the night of
the tragedy. Why did you leave your motor-cycle outside in the lane?”

“The gates were locked and there was only a small wicket-gate to pass
through.”

“When you were admitted by Mr. Monsell’s butler you did not offer him your
coat or hat. Why not?”

“Chiefly because he is very deaf, and on previous occasions it has taken
as much as ten minutes to shout him from his room afterwards. I preferred to
save both myself and him a good deal of trouble.”

“When you left the study you went out by the window?”

“Yes.”

“Your reason was that Mr. Monsell told you to go out that way because the
butler had already locked up?”

“That was what he told me, yes.”

“Didn’t you think it rather a curious thing that on the night of a
candidate’s election his front-door should be locked and barred before
midnight? Didn’t you think it rather curious that a man should allow his
butler to lock up the house while a guest was still inside?”

“I have thought so since, but I did not think so at the time. After all,
if an old friend asks you to go out by the window instead of by the door,
your first instinct is to do so without suspecting his motives.”

“So you suspect his motives now, do you?”

“I did not say that. I admit, however, that I am puzzled as to why I was
asked to go out by the window.”

“I notice that you call Mr. Monsell an old friend at the time you bade him
good-bye. You had got over your quarrel by that time?”

“Oh, yes.”

“Now tell me this. What was your quarrel about?”

“I would rather not say.”

“I put it to you that your quarrel was about your relations with
deceased’s wife?”

Prisoner did not answer.

“I put it to you that Mr. Monsell taxed you with having had immoral
relations with his wife?”

“That is a damned lie!”

“Do you mean that it is a lie to say that Mr. Monsell taxed you with
it?”

“I mean that it is a lie—an absolute lie—to say that I have
ever treated Mrs. Monsell other than honourably.”

“But all the same, it is not a lie to say that Mr. Monsell taxed you with
such a thing, and that you were indignant then as you are now, and that in
that way you began your quarrel?”

Prisoner did not answer.

“I will go further and suggest that it was in your anger that you stood up
facing Mr. Monsell as the butler saw you when he entered?”

Prisoner again made no answer.

“You refuse to answer any questions on the subject?”

“I would rather not.”

“The court is not likely to draw favourable conclusions from your
silence.”

Here the judge interposed: “I think, Sir Theydon, it had better be put
this way, that the prisoner is doing his case a good deal of harm by
declining to answer questions which seem to me perfectly right and
proper.”

After further detailed cross-examination of the prisoner the court
adjourned till the following day.

The most sensational feature of the next day’s proceedings,
indeed perhaps of the entire trial, was the examination and cross-examination
of Mrs. Monsell. Mr. Milner-White wrote of her: “She is a slim, frail woman,
pale-cheeked and dark-eyed, possessed of some secret vitality which, even
through her nervous glance and stumbling answers, seemed to communicate
itself to all who saw and heard her. Yet for all this vitality, she is
spirituelle
, a wraith of a woman, with all the marks of nerve-torture
upon her…People who knew her a year ago tell me that they can hardly think
she is the same woman. She looked a girl then; now she is ageless, with the
agelessness born of suffering…It was easy to see that her public appearance
and examination was forcing a great strain upon her; once or twice she lost
control of her voice and became inaudible…But it was when Sir Theydon began
his cross-examination that the really terrible phase was entered. He gave her
no quarter. There was something unholy, almost obscene, in the
contest—like that between a python and a gazelle. To watch it was to
see a creature torn and twisted upon the rack. The result was nausea, and
when, after two hours of the agony, the victim fainted and had to be carried
out of the witness-box, a man turned to me and said: ‘That was the most
dreadful thing I ever saw…’ Luckily the court adjourned for the lunch
interval. Even the June sunlight blazing on the pavements outside the court
seemed first of all a mockery.”