Samuel Boyd of Catchpole Square: A Mystery

by B. L. Farjeon

Mr. Mallandaine: "Nevertheless, Mr. Pallaret, the evidence had better be read from the Coroner's notes, in which you may possibly find discrepancies."

Mr. Pallaret: "There are parts which I wish to be read, in proof of the ingenuous part played by Mr. Reginald Boyd."

Mr. Marlow: "We will read the whole of it. There will also be submitted to your worship proof of identification of the body, with the Coroner's notes, and the evidence of the two prisoners on that point."

Mr. Pallaret: "We admit that. There can be no possible doubt that the man murdered was Mr. Samuel Boyd, and I may state explicitly that there is not the least intention on our parts to dispute matters of fact."

Mr. Marlow: "On the night in question three incidents occurred of which we have positive knowledge. The first was the summary discharge by the murdered man of his clerk, Mr. Abel Death, whose singular disappearance has yet to be accounted for; the second was the visit of Lady Wharton to Mr. Samuel Boyd, and her depositing with him certain articles of jewellery which her ladyship will be called upon to identify; the third, the visit of Reginald Boyd to his father under the circumstances I have mentioned. I name these incidents in the order of their occurrence. From the first discovery of the murder suspicion pointed to Reginald Boyd as its probable perpetrator, but the disclosures made up to a certain point of the inquiry in the Coroner's Court were not considered sufficiently conclusive by the police to warrant his arrest. But he was kept under observation. Towards the conclusion of the second day of the inquiry an important witness came forward in the person of Dr. Pye, a gentleman who, we understand, has devoted his life to scientific pursuits. This gentleman resides in Shore Street, a street running parallel to Catchpole Square. The windows at the back of Dr. Pye's house directly face the front of the house occupied by Mr. Samuel Boyd. It has been his habit for years to keep up late at night for the purpose of making scientific experiments, and on the night of Friday the 1st of March he was so employed. At three o'clock on that night--that is to say, on the morning of Saturday, the 2nd--he was standing at the window of the room in which he was at work, when his attention was attracted by an unusual movement at the door of Samuel Boyd's house. It will be necessary to bear in mind that Catchpole Square is a cul de sac, and that it is very rarely indeed that any person enters there, and none, unless it be an entire stranger, with the intention of passing through. The entrance to the Square is through a hooded passage bearing the ominous name of Deadman's Court. As I have told you, Dr. Pye was standing at the window--as he will tell you aimlessly, and as I submit in the abstracted mood habitual to students after some hours of secluded work--when he dimly observed the opening of the street door. An incident so unusual and suspicious made a strong impression upon him, and for the purpose of ascertaining the cause he brought forward an ingenious contrivance of his own invention by means of which he is enabled to throw a flashlight a considerable distance upon any desired spot, while the operator remains in shadow. The flashlight revealed the figure of a man standing at the door in an attitude of fear; Dr. Pye distinguished quite clearly the features of this man, who at that time was a stranger to him. The man remained at the door in his fear-struck attitude for several moments; then, the flashlight extinguished, Dr. Pye observed the shadow of a man--the night was dark, and he could distinguish no more than the shadow--slink cautiously and stealthily out of the Square. This was the end of the incident. During the inquest Dr. Pye properly conceived it to be his duty, in the interests of justice, to make the incident public, and he addressed a note to the Coroner, stating that he had evidence of more or less importance to tender. He was called and examined, and the statement he made was to the effect I have described. His examination over, a remarkable incident occurred. Glancing around the Court his eyes fell upon Reginald Boyd, and he was instantly struck with the resemblance he bore to the man he had seen in Catchpole Square; and his further examination elicited this fact. It is a proof of his fair-mindedness that he warned the jury not to be led into a possible error by attaching a too great importance to this resemblance, which he suggested might be accidental. If so, it was a remarkable accident. While offering this warning against a possible miscarriage of justice--of which I admit there are instances on record--he was not to be shaken from the positive fact of the extraordinary resemblance. Observe that he was not aware that the man whom he pointed out in the Coroner's Court was the son of Samuel Boyd. Now, in this connection, there will be found a discrepancy between Dr. Pye and another witness, Mrs. Abel Death, as to the hour at which the man emerged from the house. Dr. Pye says it was three o'clock, while Mrs. Death avers that she was in Catchpole Square from half-past two till half-past three, during which space of time the door of the house in Catchpole Square was not opened. Dr. Pye fixes the time by his watch, which he says he consulted, while Mrs. Death fixes it by the striking of the hour from St. Michael's Church, which is in the immediate vicinity of Catchpole Square. Stress will no doubt be laid upon this discrepancy to discredit Dr. Pye's evidence, but it should not be allowed to weigh with you. Either of these witnesses may be reasonably and blamelessly mistaken, and the strong probability is that it is Mrs. Death, who does not possess a watch or a clock, and whose agitation at the disappearance of her husband may easily have led her into error. But anyway this discrepancy is of small significance. Whether it was at three or two o'clock does not affect the fact that a man was seen coming from the house----"

Mr. Pallaret: "I beg my learned friend's pardon. The unsupported evidence of a witness in relation to the important incident he describes does not establish the fact, and such a word should not be used."

Mr. Marlow: "I withdraw the word. You will have the evidence, and will judge of its value. It is not conceivable that Dr. Pye had any personal interest to serve in coming forward----"

Mr. Pallaret: "Again I beg pardon. What is conceivable and not conceivable will probably be made clear before we finish."

Mr. Marlow: "I will pass over the incident. The presumption is that the man was either the murderer or an accomplice. Now, how does the prisoner, Reginald Boyd, stand in relation to what took place on that night? We have his own statement that he left his father's house and was in his lodgings by midnight, and if he could produce a witness or witnesses to confirm his statement, and to prove that he did not leave his lodgings again during the night, it would effectually dispose of the peril in which he stands in regard to the resemblance between him and the man whom Dr. Pye saw. But such a witness has not been, and I venture to say will not be, produced, and we have only his bare word to fall back upon. Remember that he had a latchkey, and could let himself into the house without the knowledge of the inmate. We may take it for granted that Samuel Boyd, before he retired to bed, chained and bolted the street door, and in these circumstances the latchkey would be useless.

"I come now to the other prisoner, Richard Remington. No suspicion was entertained of his complicity in the crime, and there was no evidence connecting him with it until Monday night of this week. When Reginald Boyd was arrested Richard Remington was acting as his cousin's attorney, and on that very day he was seen posting up bills of large rewards, as stated therein, for the discovery of the murderer and Mr. Abel Death. On the face of it this simultaneous posting up of the two bills would go some way to directly associate Mr. Abel Death with the murder. I do not say that this was the intention, but it is open to that construction. If such an intention existed the design was artful and wicked, and Richard Remington's personal participation in the bill-posting--bill-sticking not being his trade--is open to another construction, that it was done for the purpose of averting suspicion from himself. On the following day, Friday, a notice appeared on the street door of the house in Catchpole Square, which stated that Richard Remington was absent on business, and that all communications for him were to be left at a certain address. Inquiry was made for him at that address by a witness who will be called, and nothing could be learned about him. I mention this incidentally, as indicating that he wished it to be supposed he was living at that address. If this were so, for what reason did he make it public, when he was not to be found there? Saturday, Sunday, and the daylight of Monday, passed without anything being heard of him; but late that night an incident of a very startling nature occurred, in which he was the principal actor.