Miser Farebrother: A Novel (vol. 3 of 3)

"The Coroner: 'Hearing what you did, why did you not go down to them?' – 'I did not like to; and, to tell the truth, it would have been as much as my situation was worth to interfere. They had often quarrelled like that, though not in the exact words I heard then; and twice, some time ago, when I did interfere, I was sent away, and told not to mix myself up with family quarrels.'

"'Who used these words to you?' – 'Principally Miss Farebrother; but my master also said, very sorrowfully, that I had better never trouble myself, and that my interference would only make things worse.'

"'Had they ever quarrelled in the middle of the night before?' – 'Yes; and she was continually threatening him, so that there was nothing very unusual in this quarrel, although it was as bad as any that ever reached my ears.'

"'When you could no longer hear them, did you fall asleep?' – 'Not immediately; perhaps not for half an hour; I can't be sure.'

"'Did you hear them return to the house?' – 'I heard nothing more of them.'

"'Well, then, you fell asleep. At what hour in the morning did you awake?' – 'At a little before seven – my usual time. By seven o'clock I was in the kitchen, going on with my work.'

"'Did you observe anything particular in the kitchen?' – 'Nothing particular. Things were pretty much as I had left them on the night before.'

"'The drawer in which you kept your knives – was it closed?' – 'Yes, it was closed.'

"'The knife with the horn handle – where was that?' – 'I did not know. I had no occasion to use it, and I did not look for it.'

"'At what time in the morning did the deceased usually ring his bell for you?' – 'At nine o'clock or thereabouts; but there were exceptions, and when nine o'clock passed and I was not summoned, I did not attach any importance to it.'

"'You supposed Miss Farebrother to be in the house?' – 'Oh yes; but I did not expect to hear her bell for a long time. She generally slept till ten or eleven o'clock. I waited till half-past ten, and then, being uneasy at not hearing my master's bell, I went to his room, and as there was no answer to my knock, I opened the door. My master was not there, and the bed had not been slept in. Then I went to Miss Farebrother's room, and she was not there, and she had not slept in her bed. I became frightened, and I thought I would look about the grounds. It was then that I discovered my master lying dead, with blood upon him, and the knife with the horn handle lying near him, with clotted blood on it. I flew to the village for assistance, and some people came back with me, and said that my master had been murdered.'

"'How far from the house is the spot upon which you discovered the body of the deceased?' – 'I cannot say. Perhaps a quarter of a mile.'

"'Could you, being in the house, have heard any sounds proceeding from that spot?' – 'It would be almost, if not quite, impossible.'

"'So that if there had been any cries for help, they would not have reached your ears?' – 'No, they could not.'

"'Now, did you observe anything particular about Miss Farebrother's dress when you found her in the kitchen so late at night?' – 'She was dressed as she usually was.'

"'Fully dressed?' – 'Yes.'

"'Did she wear a hat?' – 'Yes.'

"'With a veil to it?' – 'Yes, there was a veil to it.'

"'Would you be able to recognize the veil?' – 'Yes.'

"'Is this it?' (Veil produced.) – 'Yes, this is it.'

"'Did she wear any ornaments?' – 'I noticed only one, and I should not have noticed that if I had not presented it to her as a birthday gift.'

"'What was the ornament?' – 'A brooch.'

"'Can you identify it?' – 'Oh yes; it is a very particular brooch. My mother had it before me.'

"'Is this it?' – 'Yes, this is it.'

"'That is all I have to ask you.' – 'Thank you, sir.'

"Mr. Cornwall: 'A moment, please.'

"The Coroner: 'You understand, Mr. Cornwall, that I shall check you if you ask any questions irrelevant to this inquiry?'

"Mr. Cornwall: 'I quite understand it, sir.' To witness: 'Are you positive that your memory is faithful upon all the events you have described?' – 'I am very positive, sir.'

"'As to what took place between you and Miss Farebrother in the kitchen?' – 'Everything is as I had described.'

"'The conversation between you?' – 'Yes, sir.'

"'And the knife with the horn handle?' – 'It is as I have said, sir.'

"'You swear that Miss Farebrother frequently threatened her father?' – 'Frequently, sir, I am sorry to say.'

"'Did you ever mention this continual disagreement to any person?' – 'No, sir, except to my son. I have no acquaintances.'

"'Not one?' – 'Not one.'

"The Coroner: 'In this place, Mr. Cornwall, these questions do not appear to me to be pertinent. Some are repetitions of questions already asked and answered, others do not affect the particular inquiry upon which we are engaged.'

"Mr. Cornwall: 'I am sorry to hear that expression of opinion from you, for there is to me, and doubtless to others, something like a direct accusation in the witness's evidence.'

"Witness (in a quiet tone): 'I do not accuse any one. I am speaking the truth.'

"Mr. Cornwall: 'Then it is the truth, and you swear it, that when you last saw Miss Farebrother she wore the brooch which you gave her as a birthday gift?' – 'It is the truth, and I swear it.'

"'Can you describe the man who visited the deceased on the night of his death?' – 'I can, sir.'

"The Coroner: 'It is a proper question, and it should have been asked. I should doubtless have recalled the witness to answer it.'

"Witness: 'He is a man not much taller than I am. I am above the usual height of a woman. His face is dark; he has a large mouth and a small nose; his eyes are blue.'

"'How dressed?' – 'In a dark tweed suit.'

"'Wearing any jewellery?' – 'A silver chain and a large diamond ring.'

"'They scarcely match. The man who can afford to wear a large diamond would be likely to wear a gold chain.' – 'I don't know about that. The diamond may not be genuine.'

"'About what age would you suppose?' – 'About forty.'

"The next witness called was Dr. Playfellow. He deposed that the deceased had met his death by violence. It was caused by the wound in his breast, inflicted by precisely such a weapon as the knife with the horn handle. Asked whether the deceased might not have stabbed himself, Dr. Playfellow said that from the direction of the wound and the position in which the body was found, it was impossible that death could have been inflicted by his own hands.

"Jeremiah Pamflett was next examined. He is the son of the murdered man's house-keeper, and he testified that he had been in the employment of the deceased since he was a lad, and that he had risen from the position of a petty clerk to that of sole manager of Miser Farebrother's business. Between him and his master the most perfect harmony existed; they had never had a word of difference, and his master reposed complete confidence in him. On the afternoon before his master's death he went to Parksides to submit certain accounts to Miser Farebrother, anticipating the telegram which was sent to him requesting him to come. The deceased expressed great satisfaction at his attention to business, and in the course of the interview informed the witness that it was his intention to admit him as a partner. He, the witness, left Parksides in a very happy frame of mind at this promised reward of his long and faithful service. Miser Farebrother was a kind and liberal master; the witness declared he could not desire a better.

"A Juryman: 'You say he was a kind master. Was he in other respects a kind man?' – 'Very kind and considerate; he deserved greater happiness than he enjoyed.'

"Being asked to explain the meaning of this statement, the witness exhibited a reluctance to reply, and said he was sorry he had let the words slip. He was, however, pressed to explain, and he then said that the deceased was made very unhappy by the want of affection shown to him by his daughter.

"The Juryman: 'Was he kind to his daughter?' – 'Very kind.'

"'Was there any disagreement between them?' – 'There was continual disagreement; but it was not my master's fault. He did all he could to please her.'

"'Do you know the cause of this disagreement?' – 'It was partly about money.'

"'That she asked for, and that he would not give?' – 'Yes.'

"'But you said he was very kind to her. The deceased was a man of means. Why should he refuse to give his daughter money?' – 'From what my master said to me at different times, it was because she demanded sums of money for purposes of which he did not approve. He was exceedingly liberal to her where she herself was concerned; but he objected to his money being given to persons who hated him.'

"'To what persons do you refer?' – 'To her relatives in London – the only relatives she has.'

"'What is the name of these relatives?' – 'Lethbridge. They live in Camden Town.'

"'And Miss Farebrother wanted money for them?' – 'According to what my master said, she was always wanting money for them.'

"'Was she in the habit of visiting them?' – 'Continually.'

"'With the consent of the deceased?' – 'Against his consent. He frequently remonstrated with her for paying long visits to persons who bore him such ill-will.'

"'In spite of these remonstrances she continued to visit them?' – 'Yes.'

"'Mention has been made of a man who was in the habit of visiting the deceased in his home at Parksides late at night. Do you know anything of him?' – 'Nothing, except what my mother has told me and has told you.'

"'Did he not visit the office in London?' – 'No. I never saw him.'

"'Did no conversation ever pass between you and the deceased respecting him?' – 'None.'

"'Then you do not know upon what business he came?' – 'No; but it could not have been upon the affairs of the London business, or I should have heard it.'

"The only questions put to this witness by Mr. Cornwall were these:

"'By what train did you leave for London on the occasion of your last visit to the deceased?' – 'By the 8.12.'

"'Did you go direct to the office when you reached London?' – 'Yes.'

"'At what time did you arrive at the office?' – 'At about ten o'clock.'

"'You sleep there?' – 'Yes.'

"The next witness called was Mrs. Lethbridge, whose evidence was to the following effect:

"'You are a relative of the deceased?' – 'I am his sister-in-law.'

"'Were you upon friendly terms with him?' – 'No.'

"'Nor any of your family?' – 'No. But we are not to blame for that.'

"'Was his daughter in the habit of visiting your house?' – 'Yes.'

"'Frequently?' – 'Frequently.'

"'And of remaining there for any length of time?' – 'Yes; generally for three or four days.'

"'Your intimacy with her, then, was of a thoroughly friendly nature?' – 'Of a most affectionate nature. I love her as a child of my own.'

"'Was that the sentiment of all your family?' – 'Yes.'

"'Were Miss Farebrother's visits to your house paid with the consent of the deceased?' – 'Yes.'

"'Did you learn this from him?' – 'No. We very seldom saw him.'

"'In point of fact, how many times have you or any of your family seen him, say within these eight or nine years?' – 'Only twice.'

"'Where? At your house in London?' – 'No; at his house in Parksides.'

"'At his invitation?' – 'No. The first time we were asked by his daughter. It was her birthday, but we understood that our visit would be agreeable to him.'

"'You understood. From whom?' – 'From my niece.'

"'On that occasion how long were you at Parksides?' – 'For five or six hours.'

"'Did you and your family partake of any meal there?' – 'We had tea.'

"'Was the deceased present at the table?' – 'No; he sent word that he was not well enough to join us.'

"'Was your second visit paid upon his invitation?' – 'No; we went of our own accord.'

"'Who went?' – 'I, my niece, and Mr. Cornwall.'

"'Is Mr. Cornwall the gentleman who represents Miss Farebrother at this inquest?' – 'Yes.'

"'Why did he accompany you?' – 'Must I answer?'

"'It is at your own discretion. I cannot compel you.'

"Mr. Cornwall: 'Answer the question, Mrs. Lethbridge.'

"Witness: 'Mr. Cornwall had proposed to my niece, and he accompanied us for the purpose of asking Mr. Farebrother's consent to the engagement.'

"'Was that consent given?' – 'No.'

"'Did the deceased turn you and Mr. Cornwall from his house?' – 'Yes.'

"'In the question I am about to ask you I will not confine myself to the last eight or nine years. I will go as far back as the birth of the deceased's daughter, who is now of a marriageable age. During this long period did the deceased ever visit your house?' – 'No.'

"'Not once?' – 'Not once.'

"'Did he correspond with you, or you with him?' – 'No.'

"'Not a letter, then, passed between you?' – 'Not a letter.'

"'Nor a direct communication of any kind? You hesitate!' – 'I was considering. There was one letter.'

"'Written and sent by you or the deceased?' – 'By Mr. Farebrother. It was a great many years ago. My niece then was scarcely two years of age, and her poor mother was dying. She wished to see me before she died, and it was at her direction that her husband wrote to me.'

"'It appears that even previous to that time you were not upon friendly terms with him?' – 'It was so, unhappily.'

"'Did you comply with the request contained in that letter?' – 'Yes; and I saw my sister. I was with her when she died, and I promised to look after her child and to love her as my own.'

"'I wish you to understand that it is entirely at your discretion whether you reply to certain of my questions. On that visit, so long ago, did you gather the impression that the deceased was glad to see you – that you were, in fact, welcome in his house?' – 'I must speak the truth. He was not glad to see me; I was not welcome.'

"'We can, therefore, arrive but at one conclusion – that there existed an absolute and distinct antipathy on one side or both. I come now to the night upon which the deceased met his death. Your niece was living with you then?' – 'Yes.'

"'I will not inquire into the circumstances of her taking up her residence with you when her father's home was open to her.' – 'It was not open to her.'

"'You say that? Not under any conditions? Had he positively refused ever to receive her again as a daughter?' – 'Unless under conditions which were repugnant to her.'

"'Then her father's home was open to her if she were prepared to behave dutifully, and to obey him?' – 'I cannot deny that; but as I have said, his conditions were repugnant to her.'

"'Into those domestic matters it is not our business to inquire. A few hours before her father was murdered she left your house?' – 'She did.'

"'With your knowledge?' – 'Without my knowledge.'

"'How did you become acquainted with her movements?' – 'She met our servant, and desired her to give us a message that she was going to Parksides to see her father.'

"'It was a strange hour for her to leave. Did she return to your house on that night?' – 'No.'

"'The next morning?' – 'Yes.'

"'At what time?' – 'At about ten o'clock.'

"'Did she give you any explanation of her movements?' – 'She could not do so. She was in a state of exhaustion and was very ill.'

"'What was the nature of her illness?' – 'She was delirious.'

"'We have a certificate that she has brain fever.' – 'It is unhappily true.'

"'Do you recognize this veil?' (Veil produced.) – 'It is one my niece wore.'

"'On that night?' – 'I cannot positively say, but it is hers.'

"'Do you recognize this brooch?' – 'I have seen it, but I do not think it has been in her possession for some weeks.'

"'Can you swear to that?' – 'No, I cannot swear to it.'

"'When she returned home, did it strike you that she must have experienced some excitement?' – 'Yes.'

"'Some very strong excitement?' – 'Yes.'

"'And she gave you no explanation of it?' – 'She could not, because of her condition.'

"Mr. Cornwall asked no questions of this witness, who several times in the course of the examination was much agitated.

"Witnesses were called who proved that the veil and the brooch were found near the body of the murdered man.

"The coroner having addressed the jury, they considered their verdict, which was that Miser Farebrother had been murdered by some person or persons unknown.

"We understand that a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Phœbe Farebrother on the charge of murdering her father, Miser Farebrother."

CHAPTER XI

THE TRIAL AND VERDICT – EXTRACTED FROM A POPULAR DAILY PAPER

"The trial of Phœbe Farebrother for the murder of her father, commonly known as Miser Farebrother, terminated last evening, and will be long remembered as one of the most remarkable and painful in criminal records. The extraordinary interest exhibited by the public in the case is only partially due to the murder itself and to the relations which existed between the unhappy prisoner and the deceased; chiefly it may be set down to the youth and beauty of the young woman who was accused of a crime so horrible and atrocious. As she stood in the dock it was almost impossible to believe that a being so lovely and gentle could harbour a thought that was not innocent and pure, and the demeanour of those who were present at the trial was sufficient to prove that popular sympathy was enlisted on her side. Fitting it is – and especially fitting in this case – that justice should be blind.

"Now that the trial is over, the verdict given, and the sentence pronounced, we propose to devote some brief attention to those features in it which rendered it remarkable. The case is one of circumstantial evidence, and turned no less upon the statements of those who testified uncompromisingly against the prisoner than upon the statements of her friends, whose sorrowful evidence weighed heavily against her.

"The household of Miser Farebrother, in the lifetime of the unfortunate man, was eminently cold and cheerless. Love occupied no place therein. A man of wealth and means, all the avenues of enjoyment were open to him, but he cared only for the accumulation of money. This may be said to have been his one object, and he devoted to it all his energies. An attempt was made to prove that he was of an affectionate and tender nature, and that his behaviour toward his child was that of a loving father, but this view of his character may be unhesitatingly dismissed. It renders the crime no less heinous; that he was ruthlessly murdered is an established fact.

"He had earned the sobriquet of 'miser,' and he was entitled to it. A miser he was, whose supreme passion was that of accumulating wealth. His business – that of a money-lender – was in keeping with his ambition, and enabled him to compass it. Had he been animated by sentiments of a nobler kind they would have found vent in action which would have won for him esteem and gratitude; but he did good neither openly nor by stealth. That the two persons who served him, Mrs. Pamflett and her son, Jeremiah Pamflett, should speak well of him is natural and to their credit. Were it left to them to write his epitaph mankind would be deceived – as it is in many instances by words graven on tombstones.

"He led in Parksides practically a lonely existence, and it would be difficult to imagine a more mournful picture than that of a motherless child brought up amidst such surroundings. Spacious as are the grounds of Parksides, they were allowed to run to waste; with the exception of his house-keeper and her son he had not a friend; he received no visitors, and neither dispensed nor accepted hospitality of any kind; his child had no child companions, and between her and her father's servants existed a feeling of strong antipathy; he made no effort to provide her with any sort of education; in the great house they occupied the light of home never shone. His daughter, however, was not entirely without friends. Her aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. Lethbridge, and their two children, lived in London, and for some years past Phœbe Farebrother has been in the habit of visiting their house, and of participating, through them, in ordinary and moderate enjoyments. We may at once admit that the character borne by Mr. and Mrs. Lethbridge is unimpeachable – and this, despite the evidence given by Mrs. Pamflett and her son, in which may be discerned a distinct bias against them as designing persons, whose aim was to extort money from the murdered man. No direct testimony to the establishment of this view is forthcoming, and the general repute of the Lethbridges is a contradiction of it. A feeling of bitterness appears to have existed for years between these parties; on one side, Miser Farebrother and Mrs. and Jeremiah Pamflett; on the other, Miser Farebrother's unhappy daughter and her relatives in London. This was the state of affairs when Phœbe Farebrother, a few weeks before her father's death, left his house, and found her way to her aunt's home in London, where she was received with open arms.

"There are side issues to which we do not intend to refer at any length; these issues relate to Miser Farebrother's desire that his daughter should marry a man of his choosing, and to her having already set her affections upon a man of whom her father did not approve. In connection with these opposing desires is an incident which will presently be mentioned.

"It has been elicited that on the night of Miser Farebrother's murder, and for some time previous, the Lethbridges were in pecuniary difficulties, to extricate them from which a sum of money was immediately required. A puzzling feature in the whole of this sad case is the absolute frankness which the Lethbridges have displayed as to their position and the movements of the prisoner up to the hour when the warrant for her arrest was issued. So far as can be seen there has been no concealment whatever of anything within their knowledge, and this is the more strange because much of their evidence told directly against the prisoner.

"There seemed to be only one way of obtaining the money required to extricate the Lethbridges from their difficulties, and that was by a successful application to Miser Farebrother. There is no evidence that they asked their niece to appeal to her father in their behalf; they positively deny having done so, and she herself says that no word fell from their lips to that effect. When she left their house in London with the intention of proceeding to Parksides, she did so without their knowledge. There can be no doubt that she was actuated by a wish to help them. From the moment she left them until she returned the next morning in a state of prostration, physically and mentally, they are in darkness as to what occurred, and can throw no light whatever upon her movements. During that night Miser Farebrother met his death. At the trial three articles were brought in evidence against the prisoner. The first is a brooch presented to her on her last birthday by Mrs. Pamflett. This brooch was found in the grounds of Parksides, near to the body of the murdered man. There is conflicting testimony upon the subject of this brooch. Mr. and Mrs. Lethbridge and their daughter, Miss Fanny Lethbridge, have no recollection of having seen the brooch from the time the prisoner left Parksides to take up her residence with them. They cannot swear that on the fatal night she did not wear it; but Miss Lethbridge is positive that her cousin did not bring it with her from Parksides. The two young women slept together, and not a word passed between them with respect to this ornament. Miss Lethbridge's statement, therefore, is based upon an assumption. The prisoner avers that when she quitted her father's house she did not take the brooch with her. On the other hand, Mrs. Pamflett swears positively that the prisoner did take it away with her. The house-keeper made repeated examinations of the room in Parksides in which the prisoner slept, and never saw the brooch after she left. Here, then, we have a positive oath against a vague assumption, and this sworn evidence is strengthened by the fact of the brooch having been found close to the body of her master. If the prisoner did not wear it on the night of the murder, how could it have got into the grounds?

"The second article brought in evidence against the prisoner is her veil. Here there is no conflicting testimony. The prisoner admits having worn the veil when she went to Parksides, and this veil was also found in the grounds close to the body.