The Master of the Shell

by Talbot Baines Reed

Wake, who acted as clerk, read out the name of the case, “Regina versus Bolts.” The jury answered to their names and promised to bring in a true verdict. The prisoner was called upon to plead guilty or not guilty, and answered, “Not guilty”; and then Barnworth rose and opened the case for the prosecution.

“My lord, and gentlemen of the jury,” he began; “the prisoner at the bar is charged with the wilful murder of John Smith, on the night of Tuesday, February 4.”

This was interesting, for Tuesday, February 4, was the date of the Bickers affair.

“I shall, as briefly as possible, narrate the circumstances of this unfortunate affair. The prisoner, Thomas Bolts, is a workman in the employ of a large firm of engineers in this neighbourhood, in which the murdered man was also engaged as a foreman and overseer. It is unnecessary, gentlemen of the jury, to explain to you that the works in question are divided into several distinct departments, or shops. I need not describe them all, but two of them were the screw department and the boiler department. Smith was foreman and overseer of the screw department, while the prisoner was one of the skilled workmen in the boiler department. For some time past ill-feeling had existed between the men of the boiler department and the deceased on account of his interference with them; and this ill-feeling appears to have culminated a few days before the murder, on account of an intrusion made by Smith into the boiler department, and the alleged assault of one of the men there employed.”

Every one saw now what was coming, and pricked up his ears in anticipation. Ainger, who had had as little idea of the turn things were going to take as anybody else, grew fidgety, and wished Wake had shown more discretion. But it was too late to stop the case now.

“This assault occurred, I believe, on the 2nd of February.”

“No, the 3rd—the day before,” whispered Ranger, who acted as junior counsel for the prosecution.

“I am obliged to my learned friend for correcting me. This occurred on the 3rd, the day before the murder. Now, gentlemen of the jury, I ask your attention to the occurrences which followed. At the time of the assault the prisoner, in the absence of the head foreman, was acting as overseer of his shop, and witnesses will prove that he protested against the behaviour of the deceased, and was in consequence insulted by Smith. I mention this to show that a personal grudge existed between the two men.”

Stafford, whose rôle as prisoner may or may not have been the result of mere accident, began not to like the turn things were taking.

“On the 4th everything went well till the evening, although, it is stated, a formal complaint of Smith’s interference was made through the regular, foreman of the boiler-shop, as will appear in evidence. In the evening of that day—that is, about eight o’clock—a meeting of the heads of the various departments was held in a distant part of the works, which was attended by Smith as well as the other foremen. The meeting lasted till 9.30, and Smith was last seen proceeding to his own quarters, in the neighbourhood of the boiler-shop.