The dead child had been found by a crone, who was ministering to Mrs. Peters. She had placed it in a cot in a room adjacent to the mother’s room, and had left both mother and child asleep at about six-thirty o’clock while she went out to attend to some small purchases. She returned at about a quarter to seven to find Peters just home from his work and sitting by his wife’s bed. She was asleep. It was not for some little time later that the beldame, going to the child’s cot, discovered that it was dead. Her first suppressed cry had been heard by the acute ears of the mother, even in sleep, and she awakened from slumber to call for her babe. In the excitement that followed with the husband and the beldame she became alarmed and, arising, made her way to the adjoining room to discover the dreadful truth. She sank rapidly after the shock and died within a few days.
It was not until the doctor, coming on a call to attend the mother, examined the child, that the marks of strangulation were discovered on its little throat. The police were promptly notified. After one night’s detention the old woman was freed of suspicion and the police hand fell on Peters.
He protested that he had entered the house not fifteen minutes before the old woman, had found both mother and babe asleep, as he supposed, and had sat down by his wife’s side to watch, until the nurse returned.
Such were the principal facts.
Lanagan, working from a stubborn conviction of Peters’ innocence, had devoted much attention to the case. Finally, when the police brought Peters to trial, Lanagan had enlisted the services of Haddon to defend him. Lanagan had known Haddon for a good many years; known him when he was a young prosecutor in the police courts. He had given him many friendly “boosts” in those days. Haddon had never forgotten. He was frank to admit that it was the newspaper men at police headquarters, constantly “featuring” him in the police news, who gave him his real start.
After Bannerman had ruled as a committing magistrate, binding Peters over to trial for murder, Lanagan had walked to Haddon’s office, reviewing the events of the day.
It was his own conviction, as well as that of Haddon, that in all fairness, from the evidence presented, Bannerman should have dismissed the charge. That he should have held Peters as guilty gave Lanagan a freshened enthusiasm in Peters’ behalf; because it appeared to Lanagan that Bannerman was acting under powerful pressure in finding such a holding, even with the sentiment created by neurotic women in favour of a conviction.
“I’ll keep you posted on developments,” said Lanagan, as he left Haddon’s office, cheerfully helping himself to a fist-full of the cigars which that discriminating smoker imported for his own use. “I may need your service later.
“Sampson,” he said to his city editor a few moments later, “there’s something funny about that Peters case, in spite of their holding him to answer. Haddon thinks as I do. I’m going to tackle it again.”
“Tear into it, Jack,” said Sampson. “You haven’t turned much up lately, anyhow. Think you are going stale.”