TRIAL OF JOHN JASPER

TRIAL
OF JOHN JASPER
Lay Precentor of Cloisterham Cathedral in the County
of Kent, for the
MURDER
OF EDWIN DROOD
Engineer.

Heard by
MR. JUSTICE GILBERT KEITH CHESTERTON
sitting with a Special Jury, in the King’s Hall, Covent Garden,
W.C., on Wednesday, the 7th January, 1914.
Verbatim Report of the proceedings from the Shorthand Notes of
J. W. T. Ley.
LONDON
CHAPMAN & HALL, LTD.
1914

Printed by The Westminster Press (Gerrards Ltd.), 411a Harrow Road, London, W.

KING’S HALL, COVENT GARDEN
JANUARY 7th, 1914.

The Trial of John Jasper for The Murder of Edwin Drood

Under the Auspices of The Dickens Fellowship (London Branch)

Frank S. Johnson, Hon. Sec.

JUDGE, WITNESSES, COUNSEL AND JURY

The Jury will be chosen from among the following:

Barristers, Reporters and Spectators.

INDICTMENT
of
JOHN JASPER

Lay Precentor of Cloisterham Cathedral, in the County of Kent,

for the

MURDER

of

EDWIN DROOD, Engineer.

TRIAL

Holden at the ASSIZES at WESTMINSTER,
on the 7th January, 1914.

The Jurors for this trial upon their oath[1] present, that JOHN JASPER on the 24th day of December in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and sixty in the Parish of Cloisterham and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought did kill and murder one EDWIN DROOD against the peace of every true Dickensian.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Or, if one of the Grand Jurors be a Quaker or other person entitled to affirm instead of taking an oath, say instead: “The jurors of Our Lord the King upon their oath and affirmation present, &c.”

INDICTMENT

WHEREAS, in support of the above Indictment, divers allegations are set forth, as follows, that is to say:—

The accused, JOHN JASPER, aged 26, is Choirmaster at Cloisterham Cathedral, otherwise known as “lay precentor.” He lodges over the Gateway of the Cathedral. For some years he admits he has been in the habit of taking opium, and has resorted to an Opium Den in the East End of London kept by an elderly woman known as “Princess Puffer.”

The man of whose murder he stands accused was his nephew, EDWIN DROOD, in his 21st year, and by profession an Engineer. The Prisoner, who was likewise Trustee and Guardian of the said Edwin Drood, professed the greatest affection for him, and on the occasion of his visits to Cloisterham manifested every appearance of joy and satisfaction.

The said Edwin Drood was betrothed to one Rosa Bud, this being in fulfillment of a contract made by their respective parents (now deceased). Certain formalities in connection with the confirmation of this engagement, notably the handing of a ring by Mr. Grewgious, solicitor, Staple Inn, legal adviser to Edwin Drood, were witnessed by Mr. Grewgious’s clerk, Bazzard. There is evidence to show that they had grown weary of each other, and wished the Contract to be annulled. On the other hand, Jasper, the Accused, was admittedly in love with Rosa Bud, and it is alleged was secretly jealous of his nephew. Miss Bud, on her part, deposes that she not only disliked but “feared” Jasper and avoided his attentions as much as possible. Eventually the engagement between Edwin Drood and Rosa Bud was rescinded by mutual consent; but the said John Jasper, for sufficient reasons, was not at the time warned of this fact. The circumstance, however, was revealed to Mr. Grewgious.

WITNESSES will be called to prove that in the early part of the year, the Accused, Jasper, accompanied a stonemason named Durdles to the Cathedral and made particular enquiry into the destructive qualities of quicklime. It is also alleged that Jasper applied a drug to this same Durdles, causing sleep, and that he then appropriated his keys, and therefrom made a close investigation of the vaults, especially of the Sapsea vault, which was partly hollow.

There were also residing in Cloisterham an orphan brother and sister, twins, by name Neville and Helena Landless. They came from Ceylon, where they had been subjected to personal ill-treatment, and after staying with Mr. Honeythunder, their guardian, Neville was lodged with Canon Crisparkle, and Helena was sent to Miss Twinkleton’s school. Neville Landless is described as “fierce” and hot-blooded, Helena Landless is “almost of the gipsy type.” Between her and her brother is a strong bond of affection. In her girlhood she had escaped at times from her cruel step-father by disguising herself as a boy. She is a woman of much daring.

Soon after their arrival in Cloisterham, they met Drood, Jasper and Miss Bud at a party. It will be given in evidence that there was a contention between Drood and Neville, and that Jasper afterwards fomented the ill-feeling and charged Neville Landless with being “murderous.” At the same time, Miss Landless was seized with an instinctive hostility towards Jasper, who, she thought, was unduly menacing Rosa Bud. Matters between the two young men were smoothed over to some extent, and on the following Christmas Eve, John Jasper decided to bring them together at a convivial gathering in his own house.

On December 23rd Jasper visited the Opium Den in London. Next day he returned to Cloisterham, and was followed thither by the Opium Woman, who had heard him use threatening language in his sleep towards someone called “Ned” (Jasper’s nickname for Edwin Drood).

At night (Christmas Eve) the three men met and dined. It was a night of wild storm. The next morning Jasper hastened to Canon Crisparkle’s house shouting excitedly that his dear nephew had disappeared, and that he was convinced he had been murdered.

He plainly indicated that he believed the murderer was Neville Landless, in whose company Drood had left Jasper’s house at midnight; and Neville Landless was apprehended, but subsequently released for want of evidence.

On December 26th Mr. Grewgious visited Jasper and informed him that the engagement between Drood and Miss Bud had been broken off. It is in evidence that on hearing this news for the first time, Jasper “gasped, tore his hair, shrieked” and finally swooned away.

Shortly afterwards Canon Crisparkle visiting the Weir on the river, discovered Edwin Drood’s watch and chain, which had been placed in the timbers; and in a pool below he found Drood’s scarf-pin.

It is in evidence that the accused, Jasper, after a short interval, renewed his attentions to Miss Rosa Bud, and exercised so great a terror upon her that she deemed it advisable to take refuge in London under the supervision of Mr. Grewgious and her friend Miss Twinkleton. Neville Landless also removed to London, where he was visited by his sister Helena.

Meanwhile, a careful watch was kept upon John Jasper by a “stranger,” known as Dick Datchery. This person took lodgings opposite Jasper’s house and had him under close observation. “Datchery” (which is admittedly an assumed name) interviewed several persons, including Durdles and “Princess Puffer,” and kept a private record in chalk marks of all facts thus ascertained. In consequence of the suspicions excited by these circumstances, a warrant was applied for and John Jasper was arrested on a charge of Wilful Murder.

To this he pleads “NOT GUILTY,” and this is the issue to be tried.

The following WITNESSES will be called:

NOTE

The design on the front page of this Indictment is a reproduction of that on the wrapper of the monthly parts of “The Mystery of Edwin Drood” as originally issued in 1870. It was drawn by Charles Allston Collins, and has been the cause of much controversy and speculation.

CONDITIONS AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE

The three formal witnesses (that is to say, Crisparkle and Durdles for the Prosecution and the Opium Woman for the Defence) shall not in their evidence-in-chief go beyond the book or make any statements not expressly made therein, but in cross-examination they may, in response to specific questions, give explanations not expressly contained in the book.

The two chief witnesses (that is to say, Helena Landless for the Prosecution and Bazzard for the Defence) shall be free both in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination to make statements not made in the book, provided that they are not contradicted therein.

All statements made in the book shall be taken to be true and admitted by both sides, and any statement by a witness contradicting such statements shall be considered thereby proved to be false.

The said two chief witnesses (and no others) shall be allowed to give hear-say evidence.

The Defence having agreed not to call Edwin Drood, the Prosecution agree not to comment upon his absence from the witness-box either in speech or cross-examination, but the Prosecution reserve the right to comment upon the silence of Edwin Drood subsequent to the murder.

Both sides having agreed not to call Grewgious, it is agreed that neither side shall comment upon the fact that the other has not called him.

The Defence agree that the legal point that no conviction can take place since no body has been found, shall be raised only after the retirement of the jury, but the Defence reserves the right to comment upon the absence of a body as part of the general absence of direct evidence of the commission of a murder.

REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

His Lordship having taken his seat, the Prisoner was immediately put into the dock, and addressed by the Clerk of Arraigns in the following terms:

John Jasper, the charge against you is that you did feloniously, wilfully, and with malice aforethought, kill your nephew, Edwin Drood, in the City of Cloisterham, on the night of the 24th of December, 1860. Are you guilty, or not guilty?

The Prisoner: Not guilty.

The Clerk of Arraigns: Will the gentlemen of the Jury please rise, and sit down as I call their names? Mr. George Bernard Shaw, Sir Edward Russell, Dr. W. L. Courtney, Mr. W. W. Jacobs, Mr. Pett Ridge, Mr. Tom Gallon, Mr. Max Pemberton, Mr. Coulson Kernahan, Mr. Edwin Pugh, Mr. William de Morgan, Mr. Arthur Morrison, Mr. Francesco Berger, Mr. Ridgwell Cullum, Mr. Justin Huntly McCarthy, Mr. William Archer, Mr. Thomas Seccombe—you shall well and truly try the Prisoner at the Bar, John Jasper, for the murder of Edwin Drood, and a true verdict give according to the evidence.

Mr. George Bernard Shaw was elected Foreman.

Mr. Walters: I appear for the prosecution, my Lord.

Judge: Mr. Cuming Walters, I think, for the prosecution. Is there anyone with you?

Mr. Matz: I am with him, my Lord.

Mr. Cecil Chesterton: I appear for the defence, my Lord.

Judge: Mr. Chesterton, I think, for the defence. One s, I think. Is anyone with you?

Mr. Crotch: I am, my Lord.

[The Case for the Prosecution.]

Mr. Matz then proceeded to open the case for the prosecution in the following speech:

My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury—

The case to be tried is one of murder—murder which we shall contend was premeditated, pre-arranged and carried out in a methodical and determined manner.

The Prisoner is John Jasper, Lay Precentor at Cloisterham Cathedral. The Prosecution will set itself to prove that on the night of the 24th December he murdered in that city his nephew Edwin Drood, an Engineer.

The said Edwin Drood was 21 years of age, and for some years was betrothed to Miss Rosa Bud in fulfilment of a dying wish of their respective parents (now deceased).

To this young lady the Prisoner acted as music master, and admittedly was enamoured of her, although he kept this fact secret from Edwin Drood.

On the evening in question—the 24th December—Edwin Drood and Neville Landless—a pupil of the Revd. Septimus Crisparkle—dined together with the Prisoner in his rooms in the Gate House adjoining the Cathedral.

The night was a terribly stormy one. After leaving the Prisoner, some time about midnight, the two young men took a walk to the river to see the effect of the storm on the water, and returned to the house of the Revd. Septimus Crisparkle in Minor Canon Corner. Here Edwin Drood left his companion, intending to return to his Uncle’s lodgings.

Nothing has been heard or seen of him since.

Gentlemen, it is our painful duty to produce evidence to prove that Edwin Drood was murdered by his Uncle, the Prisoner. We contend that Jasper divested him of his watch and chain and his scarf pin, articles the Prisoner had, on another occasion, explained to the local jeweller he knew Drood to possess. The words he used were that he had “an inventory of them in his mind.”

We contend that Jasper then cast the body of his victim into a vault in the Cathedral precincts, the key of which, or a duplicate, he had previously become possessed of. There had also been placed in the vicinity a quantity of quicklime, and we submit that Jasper, having made some inquiries into its properties, used this for the purpose of removing all traces of the body in the shortest period of time. We submit that he got rid of the watch and chain and scarf pin in the river, either in the hope of disposing of material which the quicklime would not destroy, or to give the impression, should they be found, that the young man was drowned.

We shall in evidence show that the Prisoner had motive for his crime, that he made elaborate preparations for its enactment, and that he succeeded in his terrible deed.

The evidence may be circumstantial only. But circumstantial evidence, I submit, may be extremely strong—as strong indeed as any direct evidence.

We shall show you that all the acts of John Jasper for some time previous to the committal of his atrocious crime were self-incriminatory. Not merely that, but they exhibit his mind working out the very means by which that crime was to be committed. After his terrible deed was accomplished, his actions, to those who observed him closely, also indicated clearly his guilt.

The Prisoner, having made up his mind that, for his own selfish ends Edwin Drood must be killed, first chose the spot best suited to his purpose, and laid methodical plans to secure access to that spot. He paid visits to it in the company of one, Durdles, the Cloisterham stonemason, whom he drugged with doctored wine whilst there, in order that he might acquire secretly the key to a certain vault. He knew where quicklime could be procured without loss of time. He interviewed other persons, and timed the hour and everything else so thoroughly that nothing essential for his purpose was overlooked.

Now, gentlemen, it is necessary to refer briefly to some further facts bearing upon the history of this crime.

Neville Landless, upon whom Jasper cast suspicion of being the murderer, and his sister Helena, were both students in Cloisterham: the brother, a pupil of the Revd. Septimus Crisparkle, and the sister a pupil at Miss Twinkleton’s Academy in the city. They came from Ceylon, where they had been severely ill-treated, and had made several attempts to escape. On each occasion of the flight Helena “dressed as a boy and showed the daring of a man.” Neville, a highly strung and emotional youth, took immediate objection to Drood because of his “air of proprietorship” over Rosa; whilst Helena instinctively disliked Jasper because she saw that he loved Rosa and that Rosa feared him. It is worth noting as a significant fact that at the earliest stage Rosa appealed to Helena for aid and every assistance was promised to her.

A slight quarrel between Edwin Drood and Neville Landless took place in Jasper’s rooms, and undoubtedly Jasper goaded them on by his taunts. On this occasion Jasper gave them some mulled wine which had taken him a long time to mix and compound. They drank to the toast proposed by Jasper and their speech quickly became thick and indistinct, indicating that there was a sinister design in the mixing and compounding. Drood became boastful, and Neville Landless resented his tone, and at the height of the dispute, flung the dregs of his wine at Edwin Drood. Although posing as a Peacemaker Jasper actually fomented the hostility of these two young men. He seemed to delight in it and it enabled him subsequently to report to Crisparkle that Neville was “murderous.” Indeed he went so far as to assert that he “might have laid his dear boy at his feet, and that it was no fault of his that he did not.”

The Revd. Mr. Crisparkle talked with Helena and Neville on the latter’s rash conduct, and he expressed extreme regret and promised to exercise more caution in future. On another occasion Crisparkle visited Jasper, who read to him passages from his diary expressing fears for Drood’s safety. A few days later Drood, at the suggestion of Jasper, wrote and agreed to dine with him and Neville on Christmas Eve at the Gate house, Cloisterham—in order that the two young men should become friends. Their walk after dinner is evidence that this object was fully achieved.

We submit that, the whole plans having thus been prepared, the murder of Edwin Drood took place after the parting of the young men, and that John Jasper and no other was the murderer. In support of this we shall produce evidence to prove that Jasper acted in a highly incriminatory manner.

The next morning whilst great commotion was raging in the vicinity of the cathedral over the damage done by the storm, John Jasper broke into the crowd crying: “Where is my nephew?” as if everybody knew he was missing, whereas no one but the prisoner had any reason to think he was not in the Prisoner’s rooms. He even volunteered the statement that Drood had gone “down to the river last night, with Mr. Neville, to look at the storm, and had not been back?” and demanded that Mr. Neville should be called.

These utterances were made to the Revd. Canon, and showed clearly that the murderer felt so confident that he had executed his deed with perfect thoroughness that no fear of discovery need enter his mind. But knowing his nephew was murdered he tried immediately to fix the deed upon another.

I must direct your attention to one other matter. John Jasper, whether guilty or not of murder, is indisputably a hypocrite, leading a double life. Like most criminals he was also capable of foolish mistakes. Had he not killed his “dear boy,” as he called him, he would have made investigations of his whereabouts, he would have refrained from courting inquiries, and would not have excited the hostility of Rosa Bud.

But, gentlemen, most criminals of the John Jasper type, make at least one error in the execution of their crime, which ultimately finds them out. Jasper made his. Having as I have said, divested Edwin Drood of his watch and chain and scarf pin, all the jewellery he was aware Drood had upon his person, he felt safe. But he left, unknown to him, on the person of the young man a valuable gold ring set with rubies and diamonds, and this ring quicklime could not consume. The ring was once the property of Rosa Bud’s mother and had been handed to Edwin Drood by Mr. Grewgious, Rosa Bud’s guardian, with strict instructions that he should give it to Rosa if he intended to marry her, or return it to Mr. Grewgious should Edwin and Rosa decide, as seemed likely, to break their betrothal.

This was a faithful promise and was witnessed by one, Bazzard, the clerk to the said Mr. Grewgious.

It so happened that on December 24th the young couple did break off their engagement. Therefore if Drood, by any chance, were now alive, that ring would have been returned to Mr. Grewgious, in accordance with his promise. But, gentlemen, it never has been returned, and why? We say because Drood is no longer alive, but dead, and that where the body was hidden after the murder, there that ring was hidden also.

Jasper knew of all the articles that were on the person of Edwin Drood, except that ring. He did not know of that because it had only been handed to Drood on the previous day.

Nor did Jasper know of the breaking off of the betrothal, else would there have been no object in his committing the murder. Evidence will be given that Drood promised Rosa he would not spoil his Uncle’s Christmas festivities by telling him of their decision to part as lovers.

The first time Jasper learnt the fact was on the day following the murder, when he heard it from Mr. Grewgious. He then instantly “gasped, tore his hair, shrieked,” swooned and “fell a heap of torn and miry clothes upon the floor.” From this we infer that the information was unexpected and a shock to him.

Sometime afterwards the Revd. Canon Crisparkle found the watch and chain and scarf pin, when walking near the weir, and he will be called to give evidence on this and other facts.

Now, gentlemen, let me read to you an extract from the diary of Jasper entered after this discovery. It reads thus—

“My dear boy is murdered. The discovery of the watch and shirt pin convinces me that he was murdered on that night, and that his jewellery was taken from him to prevent identification by its means.”

The word “murdered” was frequently in the mind of Jasper at this time, and he made use of it in several phrases in his diary, which clearly demonstrates that he was attempting to create the impression that his nephew was murdered, and, by using the words, hoped to divert attention from himself.

But he became so nervous of what he had written, that he declared to the Revd. Canon that he meant to “burn this year’s diary at the year’s end” and by so doing, as he evidently thought, destroy all evidence of his guilty conscience.

There is one more phase to touch upon.

It is admitted that John Jasper was secretly addicted to opium smoking and frequented a certain opium den in London kept by a person known as the “Princess Puffer.” Whilst under the influence of opium he babbled strangely, moaned, and uttered significant words in the hearing of the opium woman. This woman followed him more than once to Cloisterham and on one of these occasions, the fateful 24th December, she accosted Edwin Drood, and for the price of three and sixpence offered to tell him something. He paid her the money and she asked him first his name, and when he told her Edwin, she wanted to know, “Is the short of that name Eddy?...” Drood answered “It is sometimes called so.” “You be thankful your name is not Ned,” she next replied, “because it is a threatened name: a dangerous name.” “Threatened men live long,” he assured her. Her reply was—

“Then Ned—so threatened is he, wherever he may be while I am a-talking to you, deary—should live to all eternity!”

Now, gentlemen, it is a striking and amazing fact that Jasper, and he only, called Edwin Drood “Ned”—the threatened name.

That very night Edwin Drood disappeared, and he has “never revisited the light of the sun.”

A few months passed and no trace of the body of the ill-fated young man having been found, Jasper, feeling he had cleared his way effectively, called at the Nun’s House (Miss Twinkleton’s Academy) one afternoon in the vacation, and taking Rosa unawares made passionate love to her. On being repulsed he vowed vengeance on Neville Landless—the man against whom he had already directed suspicion. So horrified was Rosa, she flew for safety to her guardian Mr. Grewgious at Staple Inn. A strict watch was kept upon Jasper by a person calling himself Mr. Datchery, with the result that he was eventually arrested.

Gentlemen, that is the case put to you as briefly as possible—it is the case you have to try.

We feel confident that the evidence we shall place before you will convince you that the prisoner has committed a foul crime, and that we can safely leave the issue to you. Painful as your duty may be, we look to you to give your verdict faithfully and fearlessly in the interests of justice and your fellow-men.

The Foreman: My Lord, one word. Did I understand the learned gentleman to say that he was going to call evidence?

Mr. Matz: Certainly.

The Foreman: Well, then, all I can say is, that if the learned gentleman thinks the convictions of a British jury are going to be influenced by evidence, he little knows his fellow countrymen!

Judge: At the same time, in spite of this somewhat intemperate observation——[The remainder of his Lordship’s words were inaudible.]

[Evidence of Anthony Durdles.]

Mr. Matz: Call Anthony Durdles.

Usher: Anthony Durdles! [That gentleman immediately entered the witness-box.]

Clerk of Arraigns: The evidence that you shall give before the Court and Jury, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Mr. Walters: Your name is Durdles?

Witness: Durdles is my name.

Mr. Walters: Do you always call yourself Durdles?

Witness: I do; ’cause my name is Durdles.

Mr. Walters: You are a stonemason, I believe?

Witness: Ay; Durdles is a stonemason.

Mr. Walters: Would you mind telling us where you work?

Witness: Durdles works anywhere he can, up and down, round about the Cathedral.

Mr. Walters: Round about the Cathedral. Thank you. Very good. Do you happen to know the prisoner, John Jasper?

Witness: Ay; I knows John Jarsper.

Mr. Walters: And did you ever happen to meet him anywhere near the Cathedral?

Witness: Yes; Durdles met Mister Jarsper near the Cathedral.

Mr. Walters: Perhaps you met him more than once?

Witness: Twice.

Mr. Walters: You met him twice. What did you go with him to the Cathedral for?

Witness: Well, sir; he——

Mr. Walters: Yes: speak up, please.

Judge: I must interpose. The witness cannot possibly know what Mr. Jasper went to the Cathedral for.

Mr. Walters: My Lord, with respectful submission to you, the prisoner might have told him.

Judge: But for that purpose you must examine the prisoner in chief.

Mr. Walters: I think, my Lord, that you will find a conversation took place between Durdles and the prisoner, and that I am perfectly justified in asking what the conversation was.

Judge: Yes; I think so.

Mr. Walters (to witness): Let us know what the conversation was between you and Mr. Jasper.

Witness: He says to me, “Is there anything new in the crypt?” and I says, “Anything new! Anything old, you mean.”

Mr. Walters: Yes?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Walters: What happened then?

Witness: We went down in the crypt, and he give me a drink out of his bottle. Fine stuff it was, too.

Mr. Walters: And what about that bundle which I believe you carried?

Witness: He asked me if he could carry my bundle.

Mr. Walters: Yes?

Witness: Ay.

Mr. Walters: What was in your bundle?

Witness: Durdles knows what was in his bundle. Keys, among other things.

Mr. Walters: Oh, keys. And I suppose you let him carry your bundle?

Witness: I did. Well, I had another drink out of his bottle.

Mr. Walters: Did you happen on that occasion to see any quicklime lying about?

Witness: Well, there’s always quicklime lying about the crypt. Always.

Mr. Walters: You noticed it. Did Jasper happen to notice it?

Witness: He did. He asked me what it was for.

Mr. Walters: Oh, he asked you what it was for. And did you tell him?

Witness: Yes; I told him it ’ud burn anything; burn your boots, and with a little handy stirring, it ’ud burn your bones.

Mr. Walters: It would burn your bones with handy stirring. And when he put that curious question to you, did it occur to you there was a reason for it?

Witness: Durdles thinks everybody ’as a reason for everything they says and does.

Mr. Walters: When he asked you would that quicklime burn, you thought he must have a reason for it?

Witness: Yes; so I did.

Mr. Walters: People use quicklime for quite innocent purposes, I believe, don’t they?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Walters: They use it for cement?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Walters: What else do they use it for?

Witness: Bodies.

Mr. Walters: Did you think, by the way he was making his inquiries, that he wanted to know if it would burn something else besides ordinary stuff?

Witness: I didn’t think as ’ow he wanted a heap of quicklime to burn his waste paper with.

Mr. Walters: What happened next? You had a drink out of the bottle, and you had a little talk: what happened then? Did you go home?

Witness: No; I fell asleep.

Mr. Walters: Oh, you fell asleep?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Walters: Anything else?

Witness: I had a dream.

Mr. Walters: You had a dream before you woke up?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Walters: What was the nature of that dream?

Witness: I dreamt that Mister Jarsper was a-moving around me, handling my keys, and I thought I was left alone in the dark. Then I see a light coming back, and then I found Mr. Jarsper waking me up, saying “Hi! wake up!”

Mr. Walters: Did you wake up?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Walters: Did you remember how long you had been asleep?

Witness: A long time. I remember the clock struck two.

Mr. Walters: And you went in about midnight?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Walters: You had two hours’ sleep?

Witness: Yes, I suppose so.

Mr. Walters: Anything else? Did you notice anything?

Witness: When I woke up, I sees my key on the ground, and I says, “I dropped you, did I?” So I picks it up, and asks Mister Jarsper for my bundle.

Mr. Walters: Did he give it to you?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Walters: I think you had on that occasion a little conversation about a curious art of yours—tapping the tombs?

Witness: Yes; oh, yes—yes.

Mr. Walters: Would you mind telling the court?

Witness: I told him, with my little hammer I could tap and go on tapping, and I could tell whether anything was solid or whether it was hollow. For instance, I says, “Tap, tap, old ’un crumbled up in stone coffin in the vault!”

Mr. Walters: That’s what you said, is it?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Walters: And what did Mr. Jasper say to that?

Witness: He said it was wonderful, and I says, “No; I ain’t going to take it as a gift, ’cause it’s all out o’ my own head.”

Mr. Walters: I understand you told him what you could do by tapping the walls—tell whether it was hollow or solid?

Witness: Yes, Durdles can tell whether it’s hollow or solid by its tap.

Mr. Walters: Was he interested in your conversation?

Witness: Very much, sir.

Mr. Walters: Did you happen to notice the Sapsea tomb?

Witness: Durdles knows the Sapsea tomb.

Mr. Walters: There is only one body in that tomb at present?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Walters: Did you tap the Sapsea tomb with your hammer, and did it sound surprising there?

Witness: It sounded more solid than usual.

Mr. Walters: Since then, you have tapped it lately, and it sounds a little more solid?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Chesterton: This is contrary to an understanding. This is a formal witness, not to be cross-examined.

Mr. Walters: Very well, I will go on. (To witness.) Did you meet him at another time?

Mr. Chesterton: This is only formal evidence.

Judge: What is the point?

Mr. Chesterton: You will find before you, my Lord, a document, and you will find there that certain witnesses who are to be cross-examined at length will be free to go beyond certain admitted evidence. The formal witnesses are not to do so.

Judge (after perusing the “Conditions”): Yes, I think I take your point, Mr. Chesterman—or Chesterton—whatever it is. The point, I understand, is that you are cross-examining this witness as if he were a principal witness of the trial.

Mr. Chesterton: In the second paragraph I think you will notice——

Mr. Walters: It is not of great importance to me.

Judge: One moment: I will see. (After reading the paragraph referred to.) I think you are justified up to the point to which you have gone, but I should recommend you to terminate it with some rapidity.

Mr. Walters: I only want to ask one question. (To witness.) You did have a conversation with Mr. Datchery?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Chesterton: I ask you to say, my Lord, that the Jury must entirely disregard the statement about the tapping.

The Foreman: How are we to dismiss it from our minds, my Lord? It is a very difficult point.

Mr. Walters: I think I shall leave the Jury to draw their own conclusions. All I want to know from Durdles is, did he have a conversation with Datchery?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Walters: Thank you. That is all.

Witness: Thank you, sir. I’ll drink your health on the way home, p’raps twice, and I won’t go home till morning.

[Durdles Cross-examined.]

Mr. Crotch: One moment, please.

Witness: Oh, beg pardon, sir, beg pardon.

Mr. Crotch: Now, Durdles, you know all about the destructive qualities of quicklime?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Crotch: Do you say that quicklime will not destroy metals?

Witness: No; I don’t think quicklime will destroy metals.

Mr. Crotch: You don’t think it will?

Witness: No, I knows it won’t.

Mr. Crotch: Now, Durdles——

Judge: I must ask you to address the witness in more respectful terms, such as “Mr.” Durdles.

Mr. Crotch: Very well, my Lord.

Witness: Mister Durdles, sir.

Mr. Crotch (to witness): I understand you were employed round about the Cathedral, and that you know all about the crypt?

Witness: Yes, sir.

Mr. Crotch: Now, tell me what was the state of the windows in 1860.

Witness: Ay?

Mr. Crotch: I put it to you again. In what state were the windows of the crypt in 1860?

Witness: Do you mean clean or dirty?

Mr. Crotch: I put it to you they were in a very broken condition?

Witness: Yes, sir; always broken.

Mr. Crotch: As a matter of fact, they were not only broken, weren’t they, but partially boarded up?

Witness: Well, I can’t remember, sir.

Mr. Crotch: Can’t remember! You were constantly in the crypt!

Witness: Some of ’em.

Mr. Crotch: How many windows are there?

Witness: I don’t know.

Mr. Walters: I don’t suppose the witness is expected to count windows!

Witness: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Crotch: Well, now, Mr. Durdles, I will ask you another question. As a matter of fact, have you not on many occasions chased little boys and others out of the crypt?

Witness: Yes, and they’ve chased me.

Mr. Crotch: Where did these boys find their way into the crypt?

Witness: Ay?

Mr. Crotch: You don’t know?

Witness: No, I don’t.

Mr. Crotch: You swear you don’t know?

Witness: Ay, I swear I don’t know.

Mr. Crotch: You have never seen them creeping through the windows of the crypt?

Witness: Might be; when I’ve been sober.

Mr. Crotch: That’ll do. Now, you tell us that you met Mr. Datchery. Is that so?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Crotch: Have you ever admitted Mr. Datchery to the Sapsea vault?

Mr. Walters: This is going far beyond—

Mr. Chesterton: If my learned friend will look at the first paragraph he will see that in cross-examination the formal witnesses may, in response to specific questions, give explanations not expressly contained in the book.

Mr. Walters: Then I must re-examine the witness.

Mr. Chesterton: Certainly.

Mr. Crotch: Now, Mr. Durdles, have you ever admitted Mr. Datchery to the Sapsea vault?

Witness: Not that I can remember.

Mr. Crotch: If you cannot remember admitting Datchery, do you at any time remember admitting anybody else?

Witness: No; I can’t say as I do.

Mr. Crotch: Thank you, Mr. Durdles.

Mr. Walters: I won’t trouble you to re-examine you, Mr. Durdles.

Witness: Well, good day. I’ll drink your health on the way home, and I won’t go home till morning—I beg your pardon, my Lord.

[Evidence of Reverend Canon Crisparkle.]

Mr. Walters: The Reverend Canon Crisparkle.

Usher: Reverend Canon Crisparkle.

[That gentleman responded to the call, and entering the witness box, was duly sworn.]

The Foreman: May I interpose for a moment? This gentleman has been called as the Reverend Septimus Crisparkle. I submit to your Lordship that his real name is Christopher Nubbles, a man who was tried before you on the information of a certain Mr. Chuckster, on the charge of being a snob, and you, in one of those summings-up which have made your name famous wherever the English language is spoken, found that the charge brought by Mr. Chuckster was well and truly proved. Now, I contend that Mr. Christopher Nubbles has gone to Cloisterham, become a Minor Canon, taken the name of Crisparkle, and is here obviously a more intolerable snob than ever.

Mr. Walters: Mr. Crisparkle; I believe you are a Minor Canon of Cloisterham Cathedral?

Witness: I am, sir.

Mr. Walters: I believe your identity has never been disputed until this moment?

Witness: Never. I am glad to be able to answer that impertinent reflection.

Mr. Walters: Do you happen to know John Jasper?

Witness: Very well. He was associated with me daily in the duties of the Cathedral.

Mr. Walters: Did he ever tell you about his affection for his nephew, Edwin Drood?

Witness: Constantly.

Mr. Walters: And did he, while in this confidential mood, also tell you of his great affection for Miss Rosa Bud?