THE evidence of the doctors and the chemists closed theproceedings on the first day of the Trial.

On the second day the evidence to be produced by the prosecutionwas anticipated with a general feeling of curiosity and interest.The Court was now to hear what had been seen and done by thepersons officially appointed to verify such cases of suspectedcrime as the case which had occurred at Gleninch. TheProcurator-Fiscal--being the person officially appointed todirect the preliminary investigations of the law--was the firstwitness called on the second day of the Trial.

Examined by the Lord Advocate, the Fiscal gave his evidence, asfollows:

"On the twenty-sixth of October I received a communication fromDoctor Jerome, of Edinburgh, and from Mr. Alexander Gale, medicalpractitioner, residing in the village or hamlet of Dingdovie,near Edinburgh. The communication related to the death, undercircumstances of suspicion, of Mrs. Eustace Macallan, at herhusband's house, hard by Dingdovie, called Gleninch. There werealso forwarded to me, inclosed in the document just mentioned,two reports. One described the results of a postmortemexamination of the deceased lady, and the other stated thediscoveries made after a chemical analysis of certain of theinterior organs of her body. The result in both instances provedto demonstration that Mrs. Eustace Macallan had died of poisoningby arsenic.

"Under these circumstances, I set in motion a search and inquiryin the house at Gleninch and elsewhere, simply for the purpose ofthrowing light on the circumstances which had attended the lady'sdeath.

"No criminal charge in connection with the death was made at myoffice against any person, either in the communication which Ireceived from the medical men or in any other form. Theinvestigations at Gleninch and elsewhere, beginning on thetwenty-sixth of October, were not completed until thetwenty-eighth. Upon this latter date--acting on certaindiscoveries which were reported to me, and on my own examinationof letters and other documents brought to my office--I made acriminal charge against the prisoner, and obtained a warrant forhis apprehension. He was examined before the Sheriff on thetwenty-ninth of October, and was committed for trial before thisCourt."

The Fiscal having made his statement, and having beencross-examined (on technical matters only), the persons employedin his office were called next. These men had a story ofstartling interest to tell. Theirs were the fatal discoverieswhich had justified the Fiscal in charging my husband with themurder of his wife. The first of the witnesses was a sheriff'sofficer. He gave his name as Isaiah Schoolcraft.

Examined by Mr. Drew--Advocate-Depute, and counsel for the Crown,with the Lord Advocate--Isaiah Schoolcraft said:

"I got a warrant on the twenty-sixth of October to go to thecountry-house near Edinburgh called Gleninch. I took with meRobert Lorrie, assistant to the Fiscal. We first examined theroom in which Mrs. Eustace Macallan had died. On the bed, and ona movable table which was attached to it, we found books andwriting materials, and a paper containing some unfinished versesin manuscript, afterward identified as being in the handwritingof the deceased. We inclosed these articles in paper, and sealedthem up.

"We next opened an Indian cabinet in the bedroom. Here we foundmany more verses on many more sheets of paper in the samehand-writing. We also discovered, first some letters, and next acrumpled piece of paper thrown aside in a corner of one of theshelves. On closer examination, a chemist's printed label wasdiscovered on this morsel of paper. We also found in the folds ofit a few scattered grains of some white powder. The paper and theletters were carefully inclosed, and sealed up as before.

"Further investigation of the room revealed nothing which couldthrow any light on the purpose of our inquiry. We examined theclothes, jewelry, and books of the deceased. These we left underlock and key. We also found her dressing-case, which we protectedby seals, and took away with us to the Fiscal's office, alongwith all the other articles that we had discovered in the room.

"The next day we continued our examination in the house, havingreceived in the interval fresh instructions from the Fiscal. Webegan our work in the bedroom communicating with the room inwhich Mrs. Macallan had died. It had been kept locked since thedeath. Finding nothing of any importance here, we went next toanother room on the same floor, in which we were informed theprisoner was then lying ill in bed.

"His illness was described to us as a nervous complaint, causedby the death of his wife, and by the proceedings which hadfollowed it. He was reported to be quite incapable of exertinghimself, and quite unfit to see strangers. We insistednevertheless (in deference to our instructions) on obtainingadmission to his room. He made no reply when we inquired whetherhe had or had not removed anything from the sleeping-room next tohis late wife's, which he usually occupied, to the sleeping-roomin which he now lay. All he did was to close his eyes, as if hewere too feeble to speak to us or to notice us. Without furtherdisturbing him, we began to examine the room and the differentobjects in it.

"While we were so employed, we were interrupted by a strangesound. We likened it to the rumbling of wheels in the corridoroutside.

"The door opened, and there came swiftly in a gentleman--acripple--wheeling himself along in a chair. He wheeled his chairstraight up to a little table which stood by the prisoner'sbedside, and said something to him in a whisper too low to beoverheard. The prisoner opened his eyes, and quickly answered bya sign. We informed the crippled gentleman, quite respectfully,that we could not allow him to be in the room at this time. Heappeared to think nothing of what we said. He only answered, 'Myname is Dexter. I am one of Mr. Macallan's old friends. It is youwho are intruding here--not I.' We again notified to him that hemust leave the room; and we pointed out particularly that he hadgot his chair in such a position against the bedside table as toprevent us from examining it. He only laughed. 'Can't you see foryourselves,' he said, 'that it is a table, and nothing more?' Inreply to this we warned him that we were acting under a legalwarrant, and that he might get into trouble if he obstructed usin the execution of our duty. Finding there was no moving him byfair means, I took his chair and pulled it away, while RobertLorrie laid hold of the table and carried it to the other end ofthe room. The crippled gentleman flew into a furious rage with mefor presuming to touch his chair. 'My chair is Me,' he said: 'howdare you lay hands on Me?' I first opened the door, and then, byway of accommodating him, gave the chair a good push behind withmy stick instead of my hand, and so sent it and him safely andswiftly out of the room.

"Having locked the door, so as to prevent any further intrusion,I joined Robert Lorrie in examining the bedside table. It had onedrawer in it, and that drawer we found secured.

"We asked the prisoner for the key.

"He flatly refused to give it to us, and said we had no right tounlock his drawers. He was so angry that he even declared it waslucky for us he was too weak to rise from his bed. I answeredcivilly that our duty obliged us to examine the drawer, and thatif he still declined to produce the key, he would only oblige usto take the table away and have the lock opened by a smith.

"While we were still disputing there was a knock at the door ofthe room.

"I opened the door cautiously. Instead of the crippled gentleman,whom I had expected to see again, there was another strangerstanding outside. The prisoner hailed him as a friend andneighbor, and eagerly called upon him for protection from us. Wefound this second gentleman pleasant enough to deal with. Heinformed us readily that he had been sent for by Mr. Dexter, andthat he was himself a lawyer, and he asked to see our warrant.Having looked at it, he at once informed the prisoner (evidentlyvery much to the prisoner's surprise) that he must submit to havethe drawer examined, under protest. And then, without more ado,he got the key, and opened the table drawer for us himself.

"We found inside several letters, and a large book with a lock toit, having the words 'My Diary' inscribed on it in gilt letters.As a matter of course, we took possession of the letters and theDiary, and sealed them up, to be given to the Fiscal. At the sametime the gentleman wrote out a protest on the prisoner's behalf,and handed us his card. The card informed us that he was Mr.Playmore, now one of the Agents for the prisoner. The card andthe protest were deposited, with the other documents, in the careof the Fiscal. No other discoveries of any importance were madeat Gleninch.

"Our next inquiries took us to Edinburgh--to the druggist whoselabel we had found on the crumpled morsel of paper, and to otherdruggists likewise whom we were instructed to question. On thetwenty-eighth of October the Fiscal was in possession of all theinformation that we could collect, and our duties for the timebeing came to an end."

This concluded the evidence of Schoolcraft and Lorrie. It was notshaken on cross-examination, and it was plainly unfavorable tothe prisoner.

Matters grew worse still when the next witnesses were called. Thedruggist whose label had been found on the crumpled bit of papernow appeared on the stand, to make the position of my unhappyhusband more critical than ever.

Andrew Kinlay, druggist, of Edinburgh, deposed as follows:

"I keep a special registry book of the poisons sold by me. Iproduce the book. On the date therein mentioned the prisoner atthe bar, Mr. Eustace Macallan, came into my shop, and said thathe wished to purchase some arsenic. I asked him what it waswanted for. He told me it was wanted by his gardener, to be used,in solution, for the killing of insects in the greenhouse. At thesame time he mentioned his name--Mr. Macallan, of Gleninch. I atonce directed my assistant to put up the arsenic (two ounces ofit), and I made the necessary entry in my book. Mr. Macallansigned the entry, and I signed it afterward as witness. He paidfor the arsenic, and took it away with him wrapped up in twopapers, the outer wrapper being labeled with my name and address,and with the word 'Poison' in large letters--exactly like thelabel now produced on the piece of paper found at Gleninch."

The next witness, Peter Stockdale (also a druggist of Edinburgh),followed, and said:

"The prisoner at the bar called at my shop on the date indicatedon my register, some days later than the date indicated in theregister of Mr. Kinlay. He wished to purchase sixpenny-worth ofarsenic. My assistant, to whom he had addressed himself, calledme. It is a rule in my shop that no one sells poisons but myself.I asked the prisoner what he wanted the arsenic for. He answeredthat he wanted it for killing rats at his house, called Gleninch.I said, 'Have I the honor of speaking to Mr. Macallan, ofGleninch?' He said that was his name. I sold him thearsenic--about an ounce and a half--and labeled the bottle inwhich I put it with the word 'Poison' in my own handwriting. Hesigned the register, and took the arsenic away with him, afterpaying for it."

The cross-examination of the two men succeeded in assertingcertain technical objections to their evidence. But the terriblefact that my husband himself had actually purchased the arsenicin both cases remained unshaken.

The next witnesses--the gardener and the cook at Gleninch--woundthe chain of hostile evidence around the prisoner moremercilessly still.

On examination the gardener said, on his oath:

"I never received any arsenic from the prisoner, or from any oneelse, at the date to which you refer, of at any other date. Inever used any such thing as a solution of arsenic, or everallowed the men working under me to use it, in the conservatoriesor in the garden at Gleninch. I disapprove of arsenic as a meansof destroying noxious insects infesting flowers and plants."

The cook, being called next, spoke as positively as the gardener:

"Neither my master nor any other person gave me any arsenic todestroy rats at any time. No such thing was wanted. I declare, onmy oath, that I never saw any rats in or about the house, or everheard of any rats infesting it."

Other household servants at Gleninch gave similar evidence.Nothing could be extracted from them on cross-examination exceptthat there might have been rats in the house, though they werenot aware of it. The possession of the poison was traced directlyto my husband, and to no one else. That he had bought it wasactually proved, and that he had kept it was the one conclusionthat the evidence justified.

The witnesses who came next did their best to press the chargeagainst the prisoner home to him. Having the arsenic in hispossession, what had he done with it? The evidence led the juryto infer what he had done with it.

The prisoner's valet deposed that his master had rung for him attwenty minutes to ten on the morning of the day on which hismistress died, and had ordered a cup of tea for her. The man hadreceived the order at the open door of Mrs. Macallan's room, andcould positively swear that no other person but his master wasthere at the time.

The under-housemaid, appearing next, said that she had made thetea, and had herself taken it upstairs before ten o'clock to Mrs.Macallan's room. Her master had received it from her at the opendoor. She could look in, and could see that he was alone in hermistress's room.

The nurse, Christina Ormsay, being recalled, repeated what Mrs.Macallan had said to her on the day when that lady was firsttaken ill. She had said (speaking to the nurse at six o'clock inthe morning), "Mr. Macallan came in about an hour since; he foundme still sleepless, and gave me my composing draught." This wasat five o'clock in the morning, while Christina Ormsay was asleepon the sofa. The nurse further swore that she had looked at thebottle containing the composing mixture, and had seen by themeasuring marks on the bottle that a dose had been poured outsince the dose previously given, administered by herself.

On this occasion special interest was excited by thecross-examination. The closing questions put to theunder-housemaid and the nurse revealed for the first time whatthe nature of the defense was to be.

Cross-examining the under-housemaid, the Dean of Faculty said:

"Did you ever notice when you were setting Mrs. EustaceMacallan's room to rights whether the water left in the basin wasof a blackish or bluish color?" The witness answered, "I nevernoticed anything of the sort."

The Dean of Faculty went on:

"Did you ever find under the pillow of the bed, or in any otherhiding place in Mrs. Macallan's room, any books or pamphletstelling of remedies used for improving a bad complexion?" Thewitness answered, "No."

The Dean of Faculty persisted:

"Did you ever hear Mrs. Macallan speak of arsenic, taken as awash or taken as a medicine, as a good thing to improve thecomplexion?" The witness answered, "Never."

Similar questions were next put to the nurse, and were allanswered by this witness also in the negative.

Here, then, in spite of the negative answers, was the plan of thedefense made dimly visible for the first time to the jury and tothe audience. By way of preventing the possibility of a mistakein so serious a matter, the Chief Judge (the Lord Justice Clerk)put this plain question, when the witnesses had retired, to theCounsel for the defense:

"The Court and the jury," said his lordship, "wish distinctly tounderstand the object of your cross-examination of the housemaidand the nurse. Is it the theory of the defense that Mrs. EustaceMacallan used the arsenic which--her husband purchased for thepurpose of improving the defects of her complexion?"

The Dean of Faculty answered:

"That is what we say, my lord, and what we propose to prove asthe foundation of the defense. We cannot dispute the medicalevidence which declares that Mrs. Macallan died poisoned. But weassert that she died of an overdose of arsenic, ignorantly taken,in the privacy of her own room, as a remedy for the defects--theproved and admitted defects--of her complexion. The prisoner'sDeclaration before the Sheriff expressly sets forth that hepurchased the arsenic at the request of his wife."

The Lord Justice Clerk inquired upon this if there were anyobjection on the part of either of the learned counsel to havethe Declaration read in Court before the Trial proceeded further.

To this the Dean of Faculty replied that he would be glad to havethe Declaration read. If he might use the expression, it wouldusefully pave the way in the minds of the jury for the defensewhich he had to submit to them.

The Lord Advocate (speaking on the other side) was happy to beable to accommodate his learned brother in this matter. So longas the mere assertions which the Declaration contained were notsupported by proof, he looked upon that document as evidence forthe prosecution, and he too was quite willing to have it read.

Thereupon the prisoner's Declaration of his innocence--on beingchar ged before the Sheriff with the murder of his wife--wasread, in the following terms:

"I bought the two packets of arsenic, on each occasion at mywife's own request. On the first occasion she told me the poisonwas wanted by the gardener for use in the conservatories. On thesecond occasion she said it was required by the cook for riddingthe lower part of the house of rats.

"I handed both packets of arsenic to my wife immediately on myreturn home. I had nothing to do with the poison after buying it.My wife was the person who gave orders to the gardener andcook--not I. I never held any communication with either of them.

"I asked my wife no questions about the use of the arsenic,feeling no interest in the subject. I never entered theconservatories for months together; I care little about flowers.As for the rats, I left the killing of them to the cook and theother servants, just as I should have left any other part of thedomestic business to the cook and the other servants.

"My wife never told me she wanted the arsenic to improve hercomplexion. Surely I should be the last person admitted to theknowledge of such a secret of her toilet as that? I implicitlybelieved what she told me; viz., that the poison was wanted forthe purposes specified by the gardener and the cook.

"I assert positively that I lived on friendly terms with my wife,allowing, of course, for the little occasional disagreements andmisunderstandings of married life. Any sense of disappointment inconnection with my marriage which I might have felt privately Iconceived it to be my duty as a husband and a gentleman toconceal from my wife. I was not only shocked and grieved by heruntimely death--I was filled with fear that I had not, with allmy care, behaved affectionately enough to her in her lifetime.

"Furthermore, I solemnly declare that I know no more of how shetook the arsenic found in her body than the babe unborn. I aminnocent even of the thought of harming that unhappy woman. Iadministered the composing draught exactly as I found it in thebottle. I afterward gave her the cup of tea exactly as I receivedit from the under-housemaid's hand. I never had access to thearsenic after I placed the two packages in my wife's possession.I am entirely ignorant of what she did with them or of where shekept them. I declare before God I am innocent of the horriblecrime with which I am charged."

With the reading of those true and touching words the proceedingson the second day of the Trial came to an end.

So far, I must own, the effect on me of reading the Report wasto depress my spirits and to lower my hopes. The whole weight ofthe evidence at the close of the second day was against myunhappy husband. Woman as I was, and partisan as I was, I couldplainly see that.

The merciless Lord Advocate (I confess I hated him!) had proved(1) that Eustace had bought the poison; (2) that the reason whichhe had given to the druggists for buying the poison was not thetrue reason; (3) that he had had two opportunities of secretlyadministering the poison to his wife. On the other side, what hadthe Dean of Faculty proved? As yet--nothing. The assertions inthe prisoner's Declaration of his innocence were still, as theLord Advocate had remarked, assertions not supported by proof.Not one atom of evidence had been produced to show that it wasthe wife who had secretly used the arsenic, and used it for hercomplexion.

My one consolation was that the reading of the Trial had alreadyrevealed to me the helpful figures of two friends on whosesympathy I might surely rely. The crippled Mr. Dexter hadespecially shown himself to be a thorough good ally of myhusband's. My heart warmed to the man who had moved his chairagainst the bedside table--the man who had struggled to the lastto defend Eustace's papers from the wretches who had seized them.I decided then and there that the first person to whom I wouldconfide my aspirations and my hopes should be Mr. Dexter. If hefelt any difficulty about advising me, I would then apply next tothe agent, Mr. Playmore--the second good friend, who had formallyprotested against the seizure of my husband's papers.

Fortified by this resolution, I turned the page, and read thehistory of the third day of the Trial.