On examination the gardener said, on his oath:
"I never received any a.r.s.enic from the prisoner, or from any one else, at the date to which you refer, of at any other date. I never used any such thing as a solution of a.r.s.enic, or ever allowed the men working under me to use it, in the conservatories or in the garden at Gleninch.
I disapprove of a.r.s.enic as a means of destroying noxious insects infesting flowers and plants."
The cook, being called next, spoke as positively as the gardener:
"Neither my master nor any other person gave me any a.r.s.enic to destroy rats at any time. No such thing was wanted. I declare, on my oath, that I never saw any rats in or about the house, or ever heard of any rats infesting it."
Other household servants at Gleninch gave similar evidence. Nothing could be extracted from them on cross-examination except that there might have been rats in the house, though they were not aware of it. The possession of the poison was traced directly to my husband, and to no one else. That he had bought it was actually proved, and that he had kept it was the one conclusion that the evidence justified.
The witnesses who came next did their best to press the charge against the prisoner home to him. Having the a.r.s.enic in his possession, what had he done with it? The evidence led the jury to infer what he had done with it.
The prisoner"s valet deposed that his master had rung for him at twenty minutes to ten on the morning of the day on which his mistress died, and had ordered a cup of tea for her. The man had received the order at the open door of Mrs. Macallan"s room, and could positively swear that no other person but his master was there at the time.
The under-housemaid, appearing next, said that she had made the tea, and had herself taken it upstairs before ten o"clock to Mrs. Macallan"s room. Her master had received it from her at the open door. She could look in, and could see that he was alone in her mistress"s room.
The nurse, Christina Ormsay, being recalled, repeated what Mrs. Macallan had said to her on the day when that lady was first taken ill. She had said (speaking to the nurse at six o"clock in the morning), "Mr.
Macallan came in about an hour since; he found me still sleepless, and gave me my composing draught." This was at five o"clock in the morning, while Christina Ormsay was asleep on the sofa. The nurse further swore that she had looked at the bottle containing the composing mixture, and had seen by the measuring marks on the bottle that a dose had been poured out since the dose previously given, administered by herself.
On this occasion special interest was excited by the cross-examination.
The closing questions put to the under-housemaid and the nurse revealed for the first time what the nature of the defense was to be.
Cross-examining the under-housemaid, the Dean of Faculty said:
"Did you ever notice when you were setting Mrs. Eustace Macallan"s room to rights whether the water left in the basin was of a blackish or bluish color?" The witness answered, "I never noticed anything of the sort."
The Dean of Faculty went on:
"Did you ever find under the pillow of the bed, or in any other hiding place in Mrs. Macallan"s room, any books or pamphlets telling of remedies used for improving a bad complexion?" The witness answered, "No."
The Dean of Faculty persisted:
"Did you ever hear Mrs. Macallan speak of a.r.s.enic, taken as a wash or taken as a medicine, as a good thing to improve the complexion?" The witness answered, "Never."
Similar questions were next put to the nurse, and were all answered by this witness also in the negative.
Here, then, in spite of the negative answers, was the plan of the defense made dimly visible for the first time to the jury and to the audience. By way of preventing the possibility of a mistake in so serious a matter, the Chief Judge (the Lord Justice Clerk) put this plain question, when the witnesses had retired, to the Counsel for the defense:
"The Court and the jury," said his lordship, "wish distinctly to understand the object of your cross-examination of the housemaid and the nurse. Is it the theory of the defense that Mrs. Eustace Macallan used the a.r.s.enic which--her husband purchased for the purpose of improving the defects of her complexion?"
The Dean of Faculty answered:
"That is what we say, my lord, and what we propose to prove as the foundation of the defense. We cannot dispute the medical evidence which declares that Mrs. Macallan died poisoned. But we a.s.sert that she died of an overdose of a.r.s.enic, ignorantly taken, in the privacy of her own room, as a remedy for the defects--the proved and admitted defects--of her complexion. The prisoner"s Declaration before the Sheriff expressly sets forth that he purchased the a.r.s.enic at the request of his wife."
The Lord Justice Clerk inquired upon this if there were any objection on the part of either of the learned counsel to have the Declaration read in Court before the Trial proceeded further.
To this the Dean of Faculty replied that he would be glad to have the Declaration read. If he might use the expression, it would usefully pave the way in the minds of the jury for the defense which he had to submit to them.
The Lord Advocate (speaking on the other side) was happy to be able to accommodate his learned brother in this matter. So long as the mere a.s.sertions which the Declaration contained were not supported by proof, he looked upon that doc.u.ment as evidence for the prosecution, and he too was quite willing to have it read.
Thereupon the prisoner"s Declaration of his innocence--on being char ged before the Sheriff with the murder of his wife--was read, in the following terms:
"I bought the two packets of a.r.s.enic, on each occasion at my wife"s own request. On the first occasion she told me the poison was wanted by the gardener for use in the conservatories. On the second occasion she said it was required by the cook for ridding the lower part of the house of rats.
"I handed both packets of a.r.s.enic to my wife immediately on my return home. I had nothing to do with the poison after buying it. My wife was the person who gave orders to the gardener and cook--not I. I never held any communication with either of them.
"I asked my wife no questions about the use of the a.r.s.enic, feeling no interest in the subject. I never entered the conservatories for months together; I care little about flowers. As for the rats, I left the killing of them to the cook and the other servants, just as I should have left any other part of the domestic business to the cook and the other servants.
"My wife never told me she wanted the a.r.s.enic to improve her complexion.
Surely I should be the last person admitted to the knowledge of such a secret of her toilet as that? I implicitly believed what she told me; viz., that the poison was wanted for the purposes specified by the gardener and the cook.
"I a.s.sert positively that I lived on friendly terms with my wife, allowing, of course, for the little occasional disagreements and misunderstandings of married life. Any sense of disappointment in connection with my marriage which I might have felt privately I conceived it to be my duty as a husband and a gentleman to conceal from my wife. I was not only shocked and grieved by her untimely death--I was filled with fear that I had not, with all my care, behaved affectionately enough to her in her lifetime.
"Furthermore, I solemnly declare that I know no more of how she took the a.r.s.enic found in her body than the babe unborn. I am innocent even of the thought of harming that unhappy woman. I administered the composing draught exactly as I found it in the bottle. I afterward gave her the cup of tea exactly as I received it from the under-housemaid"s hand. I never had access to the a.r.s.enic after I placed the two packages in my wife"s possession. I am entirely ignorant of what she did with them or of where she kept them. I declare before G.o.d I am innocent of the horrible crime with which I am charged."
With the reading of those true and touching words the proceedings on the second day of the Trial came to an end.
So far, I must own, the effect on me of reading the Report was to depress my spirits and to lower my hopes. The whole weight of the evidence at the close of the second day was against my unhappy husband.
Woman as I was, and partisan as I was, I could plainly see that.
The merciless Lord Advocate (I confess I hated him!) had proved (1) that Eustace had bought the poison; (2) that the reason which he had given to the druggists for buying the poison was not the true reason; (3) that he had had two opportunities of secretly administering the poison to his wife. On the other side, what had the Dean of Faculty proved?
As yet--nothing. The a.s.sertions in the prisoner"s Declaration of his innocence were still, as the Lord Advocate had remarked, a.s.sertions not supported by proof. Not one atom of evidence had been produced to show that it was the wife who had secretly used the a.r.s.enic, and used it for her complexion.
My one consolation was that the reading of the Trial had already revealed to me the helpful figures of two friends on whose sympathy I might surely rely. The crippled Mr. Dexter had especially shown himself to be a thorough good ally of my husband"s. My heart warmed to the man who had moved his chair against the bedside table--the man who had struggled to the last to defend Eustace"s papers from the wretches who had seized them. I decided then and there that the first person to whom I would confide my aspirations and my hopes should be Mr. Dexter. If he felt any difficulty about advising me, I would then apply next to the agent, Mr. Playmore--the second good friend, who had formally protested against the seizure of my husband"s papers.
Fortified by this resolution, I turned the page, and read the history of the third day of the Trial.
CHAPTER XVIII. THIRD QUESTION--WHAT WAS HIS MOTIVE?
THE first question (Did the Woman Die Poisoned?) had been answered, positively. The second question (Who Poisoned Her?) had been answered, apparently. There now remained the third and final question--What was His Motive? The first evidence called in answer to that inquiry was the evidence of relatives and friends of the dead wife.
Lady Brydehaven, widow of Rear-Admiral Sir George Brydehaven, examined by Mr. Drew (counsel for the Crown with the Lord Advocate), gave evidence as follows:
"The deceased lady (Mrs. Eustace Macallan) was my niece. She was the only child of my sister, and she lived under my roof after the time of her mother"s death. I objected to her marriage, on grounds which were considered purely fanciful and sentimental by her other friends. It is extremely painful to me to state the circ.u.mstances in public, but I am ready to make the sacrifice if the ends of justice require it.
"The prisoner at the bar, at the time of which I am now speaking, was staying as a guest in my house. He met with an accident while he was out riding which caused a serious injury to one of his legs. The leg had been previously hurt while he was serving with the army in India. This circ.u.mstance tended greatly to aggravate the injury received in the accident. He was confined to a rec.u.mbent position on a sofa for many weeks together; and the ladies in the house took it in turns to sit with him, and while away the weary time by reading to him and talking to him.
My niece was foremost among these volunteer nurses. She played admirably on the piano; and the sick man happened--most unfortunately, as the event proved--to be fond of music.
"The consequences of the perfectly innocent intercourse thus begun were deplorable consequences for my niece. She became pa.s.sionately attached to Mr. Eustace Macallan, without awakening any corresponding affection on his side.
"I did my best to interfere, delicately and usefully, while it was still possible to interfere with advantage. Unhappily, my niece refused to place any confidence in me. She persistently denied that she was actuated by any warmer feeling toward Mr. Macallan than a feeling of friendly interest. This made it impossible for me to separate them without openly acknowledging my reason for doing so, and thus producing a scandal which might have affected my niece"s reputation. My husband was alive at that time; and the one thing I could do under the circ.u.mstances was the thing I did. I requested him to speak privately to Mr. Macallan, and to appeal to his honor to help us out of the difficulty without prejudice to my niece.
"Mr. Macallan behaved admirably. He was still helpless. But he made an excuse for leaving us which it was impossible to dispute. In two days after my husband had spoken to him he was removed from the house.
"The remedy was well intended; but it came too late, and it utterly failed. The mischief was done. My niece pined away visibly; neither medical help nor change of air and scene did anything for her. In course of time--after Mr. Macallan had recovered from the effects of his accident--I found that she was carrying on a clandestine correspondence with him by means of her maid. His letters, I am bound to say, were most considerately and carefully written. Nevertheless, I felt it my duty to stop the correspondence.
"My interference--what else could I do but interfere?--brought matters to a crisis. One day my niece was missing at breakfast-time. The next day we discovered that the poor infatuated creature had gone to Mr.