My counsel deferred cross-examining this witness for the present.
Next came the Captain. He, too, stood unabashed while he poured out his tale of perjury. He a.s.sumed the style and t.i.tle of a Gentleman from the North, Mr. Ferdinando Fenwick: and he entirely bore out the previous witness"s evidence. My counsel also deferred his cross-examination of this witness.
Mr. Merridew was the third witness. He followed suit. He deposed that he was a Sheriff"s officer. He had seen the a.s.sault and the rescue: he had also helped to carry the robber to the round house. This witness"s cross-examination was also deferred.
Mr. Probus, attired in black velvet with fine lace ruffles and neckerchief, so that his respectable appearance could not but impress the jury, said that he was pa.s.sing the watch-house, by accident, about midnight, having been summoned by a client, when he saw an unconscious figure carried in: that he followed from motives of humanity hoping to be of use to some fellow Christian: that he then perceived, to his amazement, that the robber was none other than the son of his old friend and employer the late Sir Peter Halliday, Alderman and ex-Lord Mayor: that he saw the worthy clergyman"s purse taken from his pocket so that there could be no doubt of his guilt. He also added that it was four years and more since Sir Peter had turned his son out of doors, since when he believed that the young man had earned a precarious living by playing the fiddle to sailors and such low company.
Then the cross-examination began.
My counsel asked him first, whether he knew any of the three preceding witnesses. He did not: they were strangers to him. Had he never seen the man Merridew? He never had. Did not Merridew owe him money? He did not.
He was now attorney to Mr. Matthew Halliday? Had he ever taken the man Merridew to Mr. Halliday"s counting-house? He had not. "In fact, Mr.
Probus, you know nothing at all about Mr. Merridew?" "Nothing." "And nothing about the other two men?" "Nothing."
"I come now, Mr. Probus, to a question which will astonish the Court.
Will you tell me in what way the prisoner"s death will benefit you?"
"In no way."
"Oh! In no way. Come, Sir, think a little. Collect yourself, I pray you.
You are attorney to Mr. Matthew Halliday. You have lent him money?" No answer. "Please answer my question." No answer. "Never mind, I shall find an answer from you before long. Meantime I inform the Jury that you have lent him 25,000 on the condition that he pays 15 per cent.
interest on 40,000, the sum to be repaid. That is the exact description of the transaction, I believe?"
He replied unwillingly, "If you please to say so."
"Very well. Now your client has spent, or lost, the whole of his money and yours--do not deny the fact because I am going to prove it presently. He cannot pay you one farthing. In fact, before long the firm of Halliday Brothers will become bankrupt." (There was a movement and a whisper among the Aldermen and Sheriffs on the Bench.) "Is this true or not?" No answer.
"My Lud, I press for an answer. This is a most important question. I can find an answer from another witness, but I must have an answer from the witness now in the box."
"Answer the question immediately, Sir," said the Judge.
"I do not know."
"You do not know? Come, Sir, have you been informed, or have you not, by Mr. Matthew Halliday himself, of his position?"
"I have not."
"You have not. Mark his answer, gentlemen of the Jury. Do not forget his statement. He says that he knows nothing and has been told nothing of his client"s present unfortunate condition. Let us go on. The late Sir Peter Halliday left a large sum of money--100,000, I believe--to the survivor of two--either his son or his nephew?"
"That is true."
If Halliday Brothers becomes bankrupt, your claim would rank with those of the other creditors?"
"I suppose so."
"In which case you would get little or nothing of the 40,000. But if the prisoner could be persuaded to sell his chance of succession before the declaration of bankruptcy, your client could raise money on that succession out of which you could be paid in full, if he consented?"
"Yes, if he consented."
"You have already made three several attempts to make him sell, have you not?"
"Acting by my client"s instructions."
"The first time, when he refused, you threatened revenge, did you not?"
"I did not."
"You then clapped him in a debtors" prison on a trumped-up charge of debt?"
"It was a debt due to an estate placed in my hands."
"The prisoner denied the debt: said that the instrument was given to him by the owner, did he not?"
"Perhaps."
"But you put him in prison and kept him there?"
"I did, acting for my clients, the executors."
"The next time you called upon him and offered to buy his share was about six weeks ago?"
"It was, acting on instructions from my client."
"He refused. You then threatened him again?"
"I did not."
"Two days afterwards the alleged robbery took place at which you were an accidental observer?"
"Accidental."
"I said so--accidental. Now, if this case should prove fatal to the prisoner, on his death your client, not a bankrupt, would take the whole of the 100,000?"
"He would."
"You would then expect to be paid?" No answer. "I say, you would then expect to be paid?"
"I should hope to be."
"In full?"
"I should hope so."
"Then you would be the better by 40,000 by the execution of the prisoner?"
"If you put it so, I should."
"You made a third and last attempt, a few days ago, to obtain his consent?"