call the jeweller or jewellers. I made the suggestion because it seemed to me that this would be a way of proving the case conclusively in favour of Mr Morris, or against him. But, of course, both jewellers might have gone out of business, or they might have lost their records. Or they mightn’t have kept sufficient records. If that turned out to be the case, what would my decision be? I asked myself. It was most unlikely that the plaintiff would invent the destruction of a watch. He’d behaved very well about his own driving, admitting quite frankly that he was at fault. On the other hand, although the defendant must have been a bad-tempered man, it was equally unlikely that for the sake of reducing the damages, he would take part in what was a conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice. That is what it would have come to. He would have had to be in league with the landlord and the log and dog man. Yet, if this were not the case, there must have been a very odd series of coincidences. Had the log and dog man really met a man who volunteered that he had a gold watch for sale just at the moment when the log and dog man was looking for one? I was concerned, not simply for my own decision, but because this was surely a case where a prosecution for perjury ought to take place if one could be sure who the guilty party was.
Well, the day for the adjourned hearing arrived, and my clerk, Mr Simpson, came in to see me.
‘Well, Mr Simpson,’ I said, ‘what’s your bet?’
‘I know the answer, your honour,’ he said, ‘so I can’t bet.’
‘You know the answer?’ I said. ‘You should be a judge then instead of me, because I don’t.’
‘I don’t mean that, your honour,’ said Mr Simpson. ‘They’ve settled it.’
‘They’ve settled it, have they,’ I said. ‘That means that one side has given in for fear of a prosecution for perjury. Well, I’m not going to allow that. Ask the local police inspector to come and see me. But first of all, who gave in?’
The clerk told me, and in consequence of that, a visit was paid by Inspector Hughes, not long after, to one of the parties.
From what I subsequently learned, I imagine the conversation between them went something like this. The Inspector introduced himself and asked if he could see Mr George Morris.
‘That’s me,’ said Mr Morris.
‘May I come in?’ said the Inspector.
Mr Morris invited him in and he sat down.
‘Now, Mr Morris,’ said the Inspector, ‘I’m making enquiries about a claim you brought against Mr Riley for assault.’
‘We settled it.’
‘Yes, I know. On the terms that you withdrew the action and paid the defendant’s costs. That’s right, isn’t it?’
‘Yes,’ said Mr Morris, ‘that’s true.’
‘But he struck you in the face.’
‘Don’t I know it,’ said Mr Morris.
‘And you were bound to get damages for that assault, weren’t you?’
‘I certainly should have.’
‘Then why did you withdraw the case? For that’s what your settlement comes to.’
‘I know it must seem funny,’ said Mr Morris.
‘It isn’t funny, but it’s certainly strange,’ said the Inspector, ‘that a man, who’s been knocked about and brought the matter to court, should suddenly give it up and pay the other man’s costs.’
‘Yes,’ said Mr Morris, ‘it must seem odd to you.’
‘Would you care to explain?’
‘Oh well,’ said Mr Morris, ‘I suppose I’d better. It’s been on my mind.’
‘I think I should warn you,’ said the Inspector, ‘that anything you do say may be given in evidence if you are prosecuted for perjury.’
‘Will I be prosecuted?’ asked Mr Morris.
‘That’s not for me to say,’ said the Inspector. ‘Now tell me. Why did you invent the story of a damaged watch?’
‘I didn’t, as a matter of fact,’ said Mr Morris.
‘Oh really,’ said the Inspector, ‘I’ve read all the evidence. You bought that watch from Mr Carr. And you were frightened that the jeweller’s records
Ruth Glover
Becky Citra
C. P. Hazel
Ann Stephens
Mark Frost
Louis-ferdinand & Manheim Celine
Benjamin Schramm
Iain Pears
Jonathan Javitt
SusanWittig Albert