The school of St. Margaret’s Hospital was fortunate in its lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence, or Forensic Medicine, as it is sometimes described.  At some schools the lecturer on this subject is appointed apparently for the reason that he lacks the qualifications to lecture on any other.  But with us it was very different:  John Thorndyke was not only an enthusiast, a man of profound learning and great reputation, but he was an exceptional teacher, lively and fascinating in style and of endless resources.  Every remarkable case that had ever been recorded he appeared to have at his fingers’ ends; every fact ­chemical, physical, biological, or even historical ­that could in any way be twisted into a medico-legal significance, was pressed into his service; and his own varied and curious experiences seemed as inexhaustible as the widow’s cruse.  One of his favourite devices for giving life and interest to a rather dry subject was that of analysing and commenting upon contemporary cases as reported in the papers (always, of course, with a due regard to the legal and social proprieties); and it was in this way that I first became introduced to the astonishing series of events that was destined to exercise so great an influence on my own life.

The lecture which had just been concluded had dealt with the rather unsatisfactory subject of survivorship.  Most of the students had left the theatre, and the remainder had gathered round the lecturer’s table to listen to the informal comments that Dr. Thorndyke was wont to deliver on these occasions in an easy, conversational manner, leaning against the edge of the table and apparently addressing his remarks to a stick of blackboard chalk that he held in his fingers.

“The problem of survivorship,” he was saying, in reply to a question put by one of the students, “ordinarily occurs in cases where the bodies of the parties are producible, or where, at any rate, the occurrence of death and its approximate time are actually known.  But an analogous difficulty may arise in a case where the body of one of the parties is not forthcoming, and the fact of death may have to be assumed on collateral evidence.

“Here, of course, the vital question to be settled is, what is the latest instant at which it is certain that this person was alive?  And the settlement of that question may turn on some circumstance of the most trivial and insignificant kind.  There is a case in this morning’s paper which illustrates this.  A gentleman has disappeared rather mysteriously.  He was last seen by the servant of a relative at whose house he had called.  Now, if this gentleman should never reappear, dead or alive, the question as to what was the latest moment at which he was certainly alive will turn upon the further question:  ’Was he or was he not wearing a particular article of jewellery when he called at that relative’s house?’”

He paused with a reflective eye bent upon the stump of chalk that he still held; then, noting the expectant interest with which we were regarding him, he resumed: 

“The circumstances in this case are very curious; in fact, they are highly mysterious; and if any legal issues should arise in respect of them, they are likely to yield some very remarkable complications.  The gentleman who has disappeared, Mr. John Bellingham, is a man well known in archaeological circles.  He recently returned from Egypt, bringing with him a very fine collection of antiquities ­some of which, by the way, he has presented to the British Museum, where they are now on view ­and having made this presentation, he appears to have gone to Paris on business.  I may mention that the gift consisted of a very fine mummy and a complete set of tomb-furniture.  The latter, however, had not arrived from Egypt at the time when the missing man left for Paris, but the mummy was inspected on the fourteenth of October at Mr. Bellingham’s house by Dr. Norbury of the British Museum, in the presence of the donor and his solicitor, and the latter was authorised to hand over the complete collection to the British Museum authorities when the tomb-furniture arrived; which he has since done.

“From Paris he seems to have returned on the twenty-third of November, and to have gone direct from Charing Cross to the house of a relative, a Mr. Hurst, who is a bachelor and lives at Eltham.  He appeared at the house at twenty minutes past five, and as Mr. Hurst had not yet come down from town and was not expected until a quarter to six, he explained who he was and said he would wait in the study and write some letters.  The housemaid accordingly showed him into the study, furnished him with writing materials, and left him.

“At a quarter to six Mr. Hurst let himself in with his latchkey, and before the housemaid had time to speak to him he had passed through into the study and shut the door.

“At six o’clock, when the dinner bell was rung, Mr. Hurst entered the dining-room alone, and, observing that the table was laid for two, asked the reason.

“‘I thought Mr. Bellingham was slaying to dinner, sir,’ was The housemaid’s reply.

“‘Mr. Bellingham!’ exclaimed the astonished host.  ’I didn’t know he was here.  Why was I not told?’

“‘I thought he was in the study with you, sir,’ said the housemaid.

“On this a search was made for the visitor, with the result that he was nowhere to be found.  He had disappeared without leaving a trace, and what made the incident more odd was that the housemaid was certain that he had not gone out by the front door.  For since neither she nor the cook was acquainted with Mr. John Bellingham, she had remained the whole time either in the kitchen, which commanded a view of the front gate, or in the dining-room, which opened into the hall opposite the study door.  The study itself has a French window opening on a narrow grass plot, across which is a side gate that opens into an alley; and it appears that Mr. Bellingham must have made his exit by this rather eccentric route.  At any rate ­and this is the important fact ­he was not in the house, and no one had seen him leave it.

“After a hasty meal Mr. Hurst returned to town and called at the office of Mr. Bellingham’s solicitor and confidential agent, a Mr. Jellicoe, and mentioned the matter to him.  Mr. Jellicoe knew nothing of his client’s return from Paris, and the two men at once took the train down to Woodford, where the missing man’s brother, Mr. Godfrey Bellingham, lives.  The servant who admitted them said that Mr. Godfrey was not at home, but that his daughter was in the library, which is a detached building situated in a shrubbery beyond the garden at the back of the house.  Here the two men found, not only Miss Bellingham, but also her father, who had come in by the back gate.

“Mr. Godfrey and his daughter listened to Mr. Hurst’s story with the greatest surprise, and assured him that they had neither seen nor heard anything of John Bellingham.

“Presently the party left the library to walk up to the house; but only a few feet from the library door Mr. Jellicoe noticed an object lying in the grass and pointed it out to Mr. Godfrey.

“The latter picked it up, and they all recognised it as a scarab which Mr. John Bellingham had been accustomed to wear suspended from his watch-chain.  There was no mistaking it.  It was a very fine scarab of the eighteenth dynasty fashioned of lapis lazuli and engraved with the cartouche of Amenhotep III.  It had been suspended by a gold ring fastened to a wire which passed through the suspension hole, and the ring, though broken, was still in position.

“This discovery, of course, only added to the mystery, which was still further increased when, on inquiry, a suit-case bearing the initials J.B. was found to be lying unclaimed in the cloak-room at Charing Cross.  Reference to the counterfoil of the ticket-book showed that it had been deposited about the time of arrival of the Continental express on the twenty-third of November, so that its owner must have gone straight on to Eltham.

“That is how the affair stands at present, and, should the missing man never reappear or should his body never be found, the question, as you see, which will be required to be settled is, ’What is the exact time and place, when and where, he was last known to be alive?’ As to the place, the importance of the issues involved in that question are obvious and we need not consider them.  But the question of time has another kind of significance.  Cases have occurred, as I pointed out in the lecture, in which proof of survivorship by less than a minute has secured succession to property.  Now, the missing man was last seen alive at Mr. Hurst’s house at twenty minutes past five on the twenty-third of November.  But he appears to have visited his brother’s house at Woodford, and, since nobody saw him at that house, it is at present uncertain whether he went there before or after calling on Mr. Hurst.  If he went there first, then twenty minutes past five on the evening of the twenty-third is the latest moment at which he is known to have been alive; but if he went there after, there would have to be added to this time the shortest possible time in which he could travel from the one house to the other.

“But the question as to which house he visited first hinges on the scarab.  If he was wearing the scarab when he arrived at Mr. Hurst’s house, it would be certain that he went there first; but if it was not then on his watch-chain, a probability would be established that he went first to Woodford.  Thus, you see, a question which may conceivably become of the most vital moment in determining the succession of property turns on the observation or non-observation by this housemaid of an apparently trivial and insignificant fact.”

“Has the servant made any statement on the subject, sir?” I ventured to inquire.

“Apparently not,” replied Dr. Thorndyke; “at any rate, there is no reference to any such statement in the newspaper report, though, otherwise, the case is reported in great detail; indeed, the wealth of detail, including plans of the two houses, is quite remarkable and well worth noting as being in itself a fact of considerable interest.”

“In what respect, sir, is it of interest?” one of the students asked.

“Ah!” replied Dr. Thorndyke, “I think I must leave you to consider that question yourself.  This is an untried case, and we mustn’t make free with the actions and motives of individuals.”

“Does the paper give any description of the missing man, sir?” I asked.

“Yes; quite an exhaustive description.  Indeed, it is exhaustive to the verge of impropriety, considering that the man may possibly turn up alive and well at any moment.  It seems that he has an old Pott’s fracture of the left ankle, a linear, longitudinal scar on each knee ­origin not stated, but easily guessed at ­and that he has tattooed on his chest in vermilion a very finely and distinctly executed representation of the symbolical Eye of Osiris ­or Horus or Ra, as the different authorities have it.  There certainly ought to be no difficulty in identifying the body.  But we will hope that it won’t come to that.

“And now I must really be running away, and so must you; but I would advise you all to get copies of the paper and file them when you have read the remarkably full details.  It is a most curious case, and it is highly probable that we shall hear of it again.  Good afternoon, gentlemen.”

Dr. Thorndyke’s advice appealed to all who heard it, for medical jurisprudence was a live subject at St. Margaret’s and all of us were keenly interested in it.  As a result, we sallied forth in a body to the nearest newsvendor’s, and, having each provided himself with a copy of the Daily Telegraph, adjourned together to the Common Room to devour the report and thereafter to discuss the bearings of the case, unhampered by those considerations of delicacy that afflicted our more squeamish and scrupulous teacher.