It has often been remarked
that crimes are discovered in strange ways. The instances on record are,
indeed, so numerous, that the moralist stands in no need of any assistance
from us to enable him to give his lesson to the workers of iniquity. Yet
we may aid the good cause to which our efforts have always been directed,
by giving an example, perhaps as curious as any that has been recorded, of
the singular ways by which the eternal laws of right are often vindicated,
though we claim, at the same time, an exemption, in the present instance,
from the gravity that is generally reputed to belong to moral teachers.
Those who have lived all
their lives in large towns, and who are, consequently, accustomed to
rumours of robberies, larcenies, and all sorts of illegal appropriation of
property, can form no idea of the dreadful stir which the burglarious
entrance of some person or persons unknown, into the premises of William
Ritchie, farmer, Searig, created in the adjoining village of Cranstoun. It
was tremendous. The honest and simple villagers stood aghast at the
appalling relation, and wondered at the enormous wickedness.
The robbery had been
committed during the night. It was an outhouse that had been entered, and
the articles abstracted were, a quantity of linen, several cheeses, and an
entire barrel of excellent salt beef, which the lawful owner thereof,
little dreaming of what was to happen, had laid up for winter store; and
often had William Ritchie, since he drove the last hoop that secured the
head of the said barrel, (for William had coopered it up with his own
hands,)—often, we say, had he, since that period, revelled in imagination
on the savoury and nutritious feeds of beef and greens which he fondly
hoped he had secured. Often had his mental vision dwelt with rapture on
the sappy rounds embedded in their vegetable accompaniment smoking
deliciously on the board: often had the same peep into futurity presented
William Ritchie (for William Ritchie liked a good dinner with great
sincerity of affection) with distinct simulations of the carving knife
entering the said rounds, and severing therefrom thick, juicy slices of
well-proportioned fat and lean. Often—But where is the use of enlarging on
all the beatific visions which the lost barrel of beef, before it was
lost, summoned up before the mind’s eye of William Ritchie. Let us rather
proceed with our story, leaving it to the reader to mark, with the
sympathy which the circumstance demands, the ruin, the utter prostration
of all William’s hopes, as regarded his salted provender, of which this
nefarious robbery was the cause.
It was a good while after
the perpetration of the burglary and theft before the slightest clue could
be obtained to the discovery of the perpetrator. One or two, indeed, were
suspected, but they were so more on the general ground of their being
habit and repute loose fish, than from any particular indications of their
guilt in the special case of the robbery of William Ritchie’s outhouse.
So long, indeed, was it
before any trace of the perpetrator of this offence could be discovered,
that people were beginning to abandon all hopes of its ever being made
out. It is curious, however, to mark how strangely things sometimes come
About two months after the
robbery in question, William Ritchie had occasion to call one day on a
certain Mr John Johnstone who kept a grocery shop in the village of
Cranstoun. It was to order some tea and sugar—Mr Ritchie being a customer
of Mr Johnstone’s, and one of the best he had.
"Ony word yet, Mr Ritchie,"
said the shopkeeper, after the first greetings had passed between himself
and the former —"ony word yet o’ your late visitors?"
Mr Ritchie shook his head,
and, with a melancholy smile, replied— "No, nae word yet; and, I fancy,
there never will be noo."
"No quite sure o’ that,"
said Mr Johnstone, with a look of peculiar and somewhat mysterious
intelligence. "Was the barrel o’ saut beef they took frae ye a gey big ane?
As muckle as wad keep a sma’ family chowin’ for sax weeks or sae?"
"I daur say it micht,"
replied William Ritchie, with, a sigh, "if they warna a’ the greedier on
"Just sae," said Mr
Johnstone, with the same expression of latent meaning; and, in the next
moment—"Will ye step the way a minat, Mr Ritchie. I want to speak to ye."
And he led the way to a back apartment, followed by his customer.
On reaching this retreat,
Mr Johnstone carefully shut the door, and advancing, almost on tiptoe, to
Mr Ritchie, said, in a half whisper:—
"I’ll tell ye, William,
what I was wanting to say to ye. If I’m no greatly mistaen," continued
Johnstone—and now adding to the force of the mysterious expression of
countenance formerly alluded to, by placing his forefinger significantly
on the side of his nose—"If I ‘m no greatly mistaen, I hae gotten an
inklin’ o’ wha it was that broke into your premises."
"No!" exclaimed William
Ritchie, with a look of intense interest. "Wha are they?"
"What wad ye think if it
were Raggit Rab?"
"That it wasna the least
unlikely," replied William Ritchie. "Twa or three has suspeckit him, and
mysel’ amang the lave; but nae mair could be made o ‘t. Hoo come ye to be
sae sure he’s the man, John?"
"Isna mustard a fine thing
to a bit saut beef?" rejoined John Johnstone, with another of his deep
"Nae doot o’t," said
William Ritchie, surprised at the oddness and apparent irrelevancy of the
remark. "But what o’ that?"
"I’ll tell ye what o’ that,
William," replied Mr Johnstone. "I’ve noticed that ever since your
premises war broken into, Rab has bocht mair mustard frae me than he ever
did in the hale course o’ his life before. There’s no a day noo, but ane
o’ his weans is here for a pennyworth;" and John Johnstone looked
triumphantly at William Ritchie.
The latter said nothing for
a few seconds, but at length remarked, that "it was a queer aneuch
circumstance, and looked geyin’ suspicious." But added, "that it was a new
way a’ makin’ out a charge o’ robbery."
"It may be sae," replied
Johnstone; "but I think it pretty conclusive evidence, for a’ that."
"It wad be a funny aneuch
circumstance," said William Ritchie, smiling, "to detect a thief through
the medium o’ mustard. There wad be novelty in’t, at ony rate."
"Faith, I’m sae convinced
o’t, I wad hae ye try’t, William," said Mr Johnstone. "Gie ye lang Jamie
the messenger the hint, and let him search Rab’s hoose incontinently, and,
I’ll wad a firkin o’ butter to a fardin’ cannle, that ye’ll fin’ something
there that Rab Borland’ll no be very weel able to account for."
confidence Mr Johnstone evinced in the accuracy of his conjectures
regarding the guilt of the personage above-named, William Ritchie could
not help thinking, as indeed, he had said, that the mustard formed rather
a strange ground of proceeding in a case of criminal dereliction, still,
as Robert was a gentleman of very indifferent reputation in that part of
the country, and in one or two other places besides, perhaps he thought
there could be neither great harm nor risk in adopting the process
recomnended by his friend, Johnstone.
Being of this opinion, Mr
Ritchie immediately proceeded to seek out the legal functionary before
alluded to—namely, James Rathbone, or Lang Jamie, as he was more
familiarly called; this sobriquet being highly descriptive of the personal
conformation of the worthy in question, whose legs were of prodigious
length, but not with body corresponding. Indeed, so marked was the
discrepancy here—that is, between the length of Jamie’s legs and his
body—that although he stood six feet three on his stocking-soles, he was
found too short for admission into a dragoon regiment, to which he, on one
occasion, made offer of his services; for, being all legs, he sunk down
nearly to his neck on the saddle when mounted on horseback, and thus
presented no superstructure worth counting upon. Jamie, in short, so far
as appearance went, was merely a pair of animated tongs. But this is
something of a digression.
William Ritchie having
sought out Lang Jamie, whom he found in the act of writing out some
summonses against certain defaulters in Cranstoun, thus cautiously opened
the business of his call.
"Ony word yet, Jamie, o’
the depredaturs?"Jamie had been previously employed in the matter
to which this question referred.
"No; nae scent o’ them
yet," replied Jamie. "But I’mkeepin’ asharp look-oot, and
houp to hae some o’ them by the cuff o’ the neck before lang."
"Hae ye nae idea wha they
could be, Jamie?" again inquired William Ritchie.
"Maybe I hae, and maybe I
haena," replied the former. "It’s no safe speakin’, ye ken, anent thae
things. There’s yevidence wanted, Mr Ritchie—strong steeve yevidence; or,
at least, weel-grunded suspicion, to allow o’ a man openin’ his mind on
thae subjects wi’ perfect safety."
"Dootless, dootless," said
William Ritchie; "but if there war now onything like fair and reasonable
grounds o’ suspicion against onybody, wad ye act, Jamie, and proceed
thereon as the law directs?"
"Undootedly. I wad nab them
at ance," replied Jamie.
"Just sae," said William
Ritchie. "Weel then, if a certain person bocht an unusual quantity o’mustard within a certain time, what wad ye infer frae that, Jamie?"
"I wad infer frae that,
that he likit it. That’s a’," said Jamie.
"But folk dinna usually eat
mustard its lane," rejoined William Ritchie; "they maun has something till
‘t. Noo, what’s the maist likely thing that they wad eat it wi’ in this,
or in ony ither similar case?"
"I dinna ken, I’m sure,"
said Jamie, musingly. "Maybe a bit saut fish, or something o’ that kind."
"What wad ye think o’ a bit
saut beef?" inquired Ritchie.
"Very gude," said Jamie.
"Just an excellent association. Saut beef and mustard;" and he licked his
lips, as he thought of the condiment thus accompanied.
"Weel then," continued
William Ritchie, "micht ye no infer, think ye, frae this extraordinary
consumption o’ mustard, that the consumer had a comfortable supply o’ saut
beef in his larder?"
"The inference, I think,
wad be fair aneuch," said Jamie; "at least there wad, certainly, be strong
probability o’ the fact."
"I think sae," rejoined
William. "Then, keepin’ in mind that I lost a barrel o’ saut beef, what
wad ye think if Rob Borland sent every day since syne to Johnny
Johnstone’s shop for a pennyworth o’ mustard?"
"I wad think it a gey
suspicious lookin’ thing, surely," replied Jamie; "and wad conclude that
Borland and your beef, Mr Ritchie, were on rather owre intimate a footin’.
It wad, indeed, I confess, be rather a queer sort o’ proof to go upon; but
feth, there’s something in ‘t. Can ye instruct as to the mustard?"
"Deed can I," said William
Ritchie; and he proeeeded to inform Jamie of what had passed between him
and Johnstone on the subject in discussion; adding, that he had come to
him by the advice of the latter, and concluding by requesting Jamie to
search the premises of Mr Robert Borland.
Jamie, at first, shied a
little at taking so very decisive a step on such strange grounds; but, at
length, agreed to adventure on the proceeding.
On the afternoon of that
very day, Jamie, accompanied by two drunken, pimple-faced concurrents,
visited the domicile of Mr Robert Borland, and there found, not William
Ritchie’s beef, but the barrel which had contained it; the last piece of
the former having made the family dinner on that very day.
The barrel, however, having
been identified, and sworn to by its owner, Mr Borland was consigned to
the county jail, and subsequently brought to trial before the circuit
court for the robbery.
A young lawyer, who was
desirous of flashing his legal sword for the first time, undertook Mr
Borland’s defence without fee or reward, and laboured hard to show that
the circumstance of the pannel at the bar’s buying a quantity of mustard
daily, was no proof whatever that he was living on stolen salt beef, or,
indeed, on salt beef at all. "It might have been salted fish. He might
have bought it to eat with salt fish, gentlemen of the jury," said this
unfledged orator, "or with a hundred other articles of food. Why salt beef
more than anything else? I say, that to allege that it was salt beef,
gentlemen of the jury, is to presume that to be a fact which is a mere
hypothesis—a hypothesis founded on an association of ideas—the association
of salt beef with mustard, or vice versa. Now, gentlemen of the
jury," continued our incipient Cicero, "you will be so good as observe
that however natural this association of ideas may be—that is, however
natural it may be to suppose that the pannel at the bar bought the
condiment in question to eat with salt beef—the inference is by no means
either a necessary or an inevitable one. Very far from it. It is indeed
monstrous to insist on its being so. Can a man, I would ask—can a man, I
say— not purchase a pennyworth of mustard without being suspected of
having stolen salt beef to eat with it? Or, take another view of the
case—is a man to be suspected of having stolen salt beef, because
he buys a pennyworth of mustard? No, gentlemen of the jury, you will
never, I am sure, give in to such a monstrous doctrine as this—a doctrine
that would destroy at one fell blow the liberty of the subject, and the
trade in mustard."
Much more to the same
purpose did this promising young lawyer say; but, we regret to add, to no
purpose. The jury insisted on sticking by the mustard, as, at least, a
presumptive proof of guilt, when corroborated by the circumstances of Mr
Borland’s "habit and repute" character, and the empty barrel’s having been
found on his premises. The result of this view of the case was a verdict
of guilty; and the consequence of that verdict, sentence of transportation
for fourteen years.
Such was the doom awarded
against the ingenious Mr Borland; and, we daresay, the reader will allow
that seldom has crime owed its detection to so curious a circumstance.
This comment system requires
you to be logged in through either a Disqus account or an
account you already have with Google, Twitter, Facebook or
Yahoo. In the event you don't have an account with any of these
companies then you can create an account with Disqus. All
comments are moderated so they won't display until the moderator
has approved your comment.