CHAPTER XXII
FORGERY
"The facts that transpired in connection with this extraordinary casewere sufficiently mysterious to puzzle everybody. As I told you before,all Mr. Brooks' friends never quite grasped the idea that the old manshould so completely have cut off his favourite son with the proverbialshilling.
"You see, Percival had always been a thorn in the old man's flesh.Horse-racing, gambling, theatres, and music-halls were, in the oldpork-butcher's eyes, so many deadly sins which his son committed everyday of his life, and all the Fitzwilliam Place household could testifyto the many and bitter quarrels which had arisen between father and sonover the latter's gambling or racing debts. Many people asserted thatBrooks would sooner have left his money to charitable institutions thanseen it squandered upon the brightest stars that adorned the music-hallstage.
"The case came up for hearing early in the autumn. In the meanwhilePercival Brooks had given up his racecourse associates, settled down inthe Fitzwilliam Place mansion, and conducted his father's business,without a manager, but with all the energy and forethought which he hadpreviously devoted to more unworthy causes.
"Murray had elected not to stay on in the old house; no doubtassociations were of too painful and recent a nature; he was boardingwith the family of a Mr. Wilson Hibbert, who was the late PatrickWethered's, the murdered lawyer's, partner. They were quiet, homelypeople, who lived in a very pokey little house in Kilkenny Street, andpoor Murray must, in spite of his grief, have felt very bitterly thechange from his luxurious quarters in his father's mansion to hispresent tiny room and homely meals.
"Percival Brooks, who was now drawing an income of over a hundredthousand a year, was very severely criticised for adhering so strictlyto the letter of his father's will, and only paying his brother thatpaltry L300 a year, which was very literally but the crumbs off his ownmagnificent dinner table.
"The issue of that contested will case was therefore awaited with eagerinterest. In the meanwhile the police, who had at first seemed fairlyloquacious on the subject of the murder of Mr. Patrick Wethered,suddenly became strangely reticent, and by their very reticence arouseda certain amount of uneasiness in the public mind, until one day the_Irish Times_ published the following extraordinary, enigmaticparagraph:
"'We hear on authority which cannot be questioned, that certainextraordinary developments are expected in connection with the brutalmurder of our distinguished townsman Mr. Wethered; the police, in fact,are vainly trying to keep it secret that they hold a clue which is asimportant as it is sensational, and that they only await the impendingissue of a well-known litigation in the probate court to effect anarrest.'
"The Dublin public flocked to the court to hear the arguments in thegreat will case. I myself journeyed down to Dublin. As soon as Isucceeded in fighting my way to the densely crowded court, I took stockof the various actors in the drama, which I as a spectator was preparedto enjoy. There were Percival Brooks and Murray his brother, the twolitigants, both good-looking and well dressed, and both striving, bykeeping up a running conversation with their lawyer, to appearunconcerned and confident of the issue. With Percival Brooks was HenryOranmore, the eminent Irish K.C., whilst Walter Hibbert, a rising youngbarrister, the son of Wilson Hibbert, appeared for Murray.
"The will of which the latter claimed probate was one dated 1891, andhad been made by Mr. Brooks during a severe illness which threatened toend his days. This will had been deposited in the hands of Messrs.Wethered and Hibbert, solicitors to the deceased, and by it Mr. Brooksleft his personalty equally divided between his two sons, but had lefthis business entirely to his youngest son, with a charge of L2000 a yearupon it, payable to Percival. You see that Murray Brooks therefore had avery deep interest in that second will being found null and void.
"Old Mr. Hibbert had very ably instructed his son, and Walter Hibbert'sopening speech was exceedingly clever. He would show, he said, on behalfof his client, that the will dated February 1st, 1908, could never havebeen made by the late Mr. Brooks, as it was absolutely contrary to hisavowed intentions, and that if the late Mr. Brooks did on the day inquestion make any fresh will at all, it certainly was _not_ the oneproved by Mr. Percival Brooks, for that was absolutely a forgery frombeginning to end. Mr. Walter Hibbert proposed to call several witnessesin support of both these points.
"On the other hand, Mr. Henry Oranmore, K.C., very ably and courteouslyreplied that he too had several witnesses to prove that Mr. Brookscertainly did make a will on the day in question, and that, whatever hisintentions may have been in the past, he must have modified them on theday of his death, for the will proved by Mr. Percival Brooks was foundafter his death under his pillow, duly signed and witnessed and in everyway legal.
"Then the battle began in sober earnest. There were a great manywitnesses to be called on both sides, their evidence being of more orless importance--chiefly less. But the interest centred round theprosaic figure of John O'Neill, the butler at Fitzwilliam Place, who hadbeen in Mr. Brooks' family for thirty years.
"'I was clearing away my breakfast things,' said John, 'when I heard themaster's voice in the study close by. Oh my, he was that angry! I couldhear the words "disgrace," and "villain," and "liar," and"ballet-dancer," and one or two other ugly words as applied to somefemale lady, which I would not like to repeat. At first I did not takemuch notice, as I was quite used to hearing my poor dear master havingwords with Mr. Percival. So I went downstairs carrying my breakfastthings; but I had just started cleaning my silver when the study bellgoes ringing violently, and I hear Mr. Percival's voice shouting in thehall: "John! quick! Send for Dr. Mulligan at once. Your master is notwell! Send one of the men, and you come up and help me to get Mr. Brooksto bed."
"'I sent one of the grooms for the doctor,' continued John, who seemedstill affected at the recollection of his poor master, to whom he hadevidently been very much attached, 'and I went up to see Mr. Brooks. Ifound him lying on the study floor, his head supported in Mr. Percival'sarms. "My father has fallen in a faint," said the young master; "help meto get him up to his room before Dr. Mulligan comes."
"'Mr. Percival looked very white and upset, which was only natural; andwhen we had got my poor master to bed, I asked if I should not go andbreak the news to Mr. Murray, who had gone to business an hour ago.However, before Mr. Percival had time to give me an order the doctorcame. I thought I had seen death plainly writ in my master's face, andwhen I showed the doctor out an hour later, and he told me that he wouldbe back directly, I knew that the end was near.
"'Mr. Brooks rang for me a minute or two later. He told me to send atonce for Mr. Wethered, or else for Mr. Hibbert, if Mr. Wethered couldnot come. "I haven't many hours to live, John," he says to me--"my heartis broke, the doctor says my heart is broke. A man shouldn't marry andhave children, John, for they will sooner or later break his heart." Iwas so upset I couldn't speak; but I sent round at once for Mr.Wethered, who came himself just about three o'clock that afternoon.
"'After he had been with my master about an hour I was called in, andMr. Wethered said to me that Mr. Brooks wished me and one other of usservants to witness that he had signed a paper which was on a table byhis bedside. I called Pat Mooney, the head footman, and before us bothMr. Brooks put his name at the bottom of that paper. Then Mr. Wetheredgive me the pen and told me to write my name as a witness, and that PatMooney was to do the same. After that we were both told that we couldgo.'
"The old butler went on to explain that he was present in his latemaster's room on the following day when the undertakers, who had come tolay the dead man out, found a paper underneath his pillow. John O'Neill,who recognized the paper as the one to which he had appended hissignature the day before, took it to Mr. Percival, and gave it into hishands.
"In answer to Mr. Walter Hibbert, John asserted positively that he tookthe paper from the undertaker's hand and went straight with it to Mr.Percival's room.
"'He was alone,' said John; 'I gave him the paper. He just glanced a
tit, and I thought he looked rather astonished, but he said nothing, andI at once left the room.'
"'When you say that you recognized the paper as the one which you hadseen your master sign the day before, how did you actually recognizethat it was the same paper?' asked Mr. Hibbert amidst breathlessinterest on the part of the spectators. I narrowly observed thewitness's face.
"'It looked exactly the same paper to me, sir,' replied John, somewhatvaguely.
"'Did you look at the contents, then?'
"'No, sir; certainly not.'
"'Had you done so the day before?'
"'No, sir, only at my master's signature.'
"'Then you only thought by the _outside_ look of the paper that it wasthe same?'
"'It looked the same thing, sir,' persisted John obstinately.
"You see," continued the man in the corner, leaning eagerly forwardacross the narrow marble table, "the contention of Murray Brooks'adviser was that Mr. Brooks, having made a will and hidden it--for somereason or other under his pillow--that will had fallen, through themeans related by John O'Neill, into the hands of Mr. Percival Brooks,who had destroyed it and substituted a forged one in its place, whichadjudged the whole of Mr. Brooks' millions to himself. It was a terribleand very daring accusation directed against a gentleman who, in spite ofhis many wild oats sowed in early youth, was a prominent and importantfigure in Irish high life.
"All those present were aghast at what they heard, and the whisperedcomments I could hear around me showed me that public opinion, atleast, did not uphold Mr. Murray Brooks' daring accusation against hisbrother.
"But John O'Neill had not finished his evidence, and Mr. Walter Hibberthad a bit of sensation still up his sleeve. He had, namely, produced apaper, the will proved by Mr. Percival Brooks, and had asked JohnO'Neill if once again he recognized the paper.
"'Certainly, sir,' said John unhesitatingly, 'that is the one theundertaker found under my poor dead master's pillow, and which I took toMr. Percival's room immediately.'
"Then the paper was unfolded and placed before the witness.
"'Now, Mr. O'Neill, will you tell me if that is your signature?'
"John looked at it for a moment; then he said: 'Excuse me, sir,' andproduced a pair of spectacles which he carefully adjusted before heagain examined the paper. Then he thoughtfully shook his head.
"'It don't look much like my writing, sir,' he said at last. 'That is tosay,' he added, by way of elucidating the matter, 'it does look like mywriting, but then I don't think it is.'
"There was at that moment a look in Mr. Percival Brooks' face,"continued the man in the corner quietly, "which then and there gave methe whole history of that quarrel, that illness of Mr. Brooks, of thewill, aye! and of the murder of Patrick Wethered too.
"All I wondered at was how every one of those learned counsel on bothsides did not get the clue just the same as I did, but went on arguing,speechifying, cross-examining for nearly a week, until they arrived atthe one conclusion which was inevitable from the very first, namely,that the will _was_ a forgery--a gross, clumsy, idiotic forgery, sinceboth John O'Neill and Pat Mooney, the two witnesses, absolutelyrepudiated the signatures as their own. The only successful bit ofcaligraphy the forger had done was the signature of old Mr. Brooks.
"It was a very curious fact, and one which had undoubtedly aided theforger in accomplishing his work quickly, that Mr. Wethered the lawyerhaving, no doubt, realized that Mr. Brooks had not many moments in lifeto spare, had not drawn up the usual engrossed, magnificent documentdear to the lawyer heart, but had used for his client's will one ofthose regular printed forms which can be purchased at any stationer's.
"Mr. Percival Brooks, of course, flatly denied the serious allegationbrought against him. He admitted that the butler had brought him thedocument the morning after his father's death, and that he certainly, onglancing at it, had been very much astonished to see that that documentwas his father's will. Against that he declared that its contents didnot astonish him in the slightest degree, that he himself knew of thetestator's intentions, but that he certainly thought his father hadentrusted the will to the care of Mr. Wethered, who did all his businessfor him.
"'I only very cursorily glanced at the signature,' he concluded,speaking in a perfectly calm, clear voice; 'you must understand that thethought of forgery was very far from my mind, and that my father'ssignature is exceedingly well imitated, if, indeed, it is not his own,which I am not at all prepared to believe. As for the two witnesses'signatures, I don't think I had ever seen them before. I took thedocument to Messrs. Barkston and Maud, who had often done business forme before, and they assured me that the will was in perfect form andorder.'
"Asked why he had not entrusted the will to his father's solicitors, hereplied:
"'For the very simple reason that exactly half an hour before the willwas placed in my hands, I had read that Mr. Patrick Wethered had beenmurdered the night before. Mr. Hibbert, the junior partner, was notpersonally known to me.'
"After that, for form's sake, a good deal of expert evidence was heardon the subject of the dead man's signature. But that was quiteunanimous, and merely went to corroborate what had already beenestablished beyond a doubt, namely, that the will dated February 1st,1908, was a forgery, and probate of the will dated 1891 was thereforegranted to Mr. Murray Brooks, the sole executor mentioned therein."