Death in the Tunnel (18 page)

“Those are the essential points of the letter, which appeared then, and to my mind still appears, perfectly genuine. Mr. Dredger wrote a specimen of his signature in my presence. He then produced two cheques, endorsed with that signature, which he asked should be paid into the account. Each of these cheques was for twenty-five thousand pounds, and were payable to Malcolm Dredger. One was drawn upon the private account of Sir Wilfred Saxonby. The other was drawn upon the account of Mr. Cecil Kirby. Mr. Kirby, as I knew, had left for a tour in Northern Europe on the previous Saturday, and the cheque bore that date, November 9th. I accepted these cheques, and gave Mr. Dredger a cheque-book. After some general conversation, he left my office.

“He appeared again at the bank just after it had opened on Friday, November 15th. He then presented a cheque on his account, bearing the signatures of himself and Sir Wilfred Saxonby. This cheque was for £48,973, and he explained that he required that sum with which to purchase foreign currency, which was to be forwarded to Kirby. This cheque was paid, in notes. I have here a list of their numbers. It was not until an hour or so later that I was informed, by Mr. Torrance, the secretary of Messrs. Wigland and Bunthorne, of Sir Wilfred Saxonby's death.”

Mr. Harrison glanced at his companion, who nodded. “I will take up the story here,” said the latter. “I have considerable interests in Northern Europe, and I had known Saxonby, both personally and in the way of business, for many years before his death. Unfortunately, some ten years ago, a most unfortunate affair interrupted our friendship. I need not trouble you with the details. We disagreed over the terms of a mutual agreement, and the matter went to arbitration. The decision was given in my favour, and Saxonby appeared to think that I had tricked him in some way. For a long time he refused to speak to me, but about last Christmas he wrote to me, admitting that his attitude had been unreasonable, and asking me to overlook it. We arranged a meeting at which a complete reconciliation took place. Since then we have usually lunched together on the days when he was in the City.

“More than once, on these occasions, he dropped hints of a scheme which he was maturing. He excused himself from being more explicit on the grounds that he had not yet fully thought out all the details. He gave me to understand, however, that it involved our co-operation, through an intermediary, in the importation of food-stuffs. I told him that as soon as he was ready to put up a definite proposition I would give it the most favourable consideration. This was the position when I went abroad on November 9th.”

Here Mr. Harrison intervened. “Not long previous to that date, Sir Wilfred Saxonby came to see me at the bank. When we had completed our business he told me that he had every prospect of interesting Mr. Kirby in a scheme which would prove profitable to them both. It was owing to this remark that I was not surprised when Dredger presented cheques from Sir Wilfred and Mr. Kirby for similar amounts.”

“I returned to London yesterday evening,” Kirby continued. “On reaching home my wife told me that during my absence, on the Monday after my departure, burglars had entered our house during dinner. Her dressing-room had been searched, presumably for jewellery, but though various objects had been displaced, nothing had been taken. She had reported the matter to the police. It was not until later in the evening that I discovered that a desk in my study had been broken open and its contents had been disturbed. The only thing which had been taken was my cheque-book. I had not taken this abroad with me, since I was using traveller's cheques. This morning I called upon Mr. Harrison, who mentioned the cheque said to have been drawn by me in favour of Malcolm Dredger. I assured him that I had drawn no such cheque, and that it must therefore be a forgery. He showed me the cheque, and I am bound to admit that the signature would have deceived even myself. The cheque itself had been taken from the book stolen from my desk.”

Mr. Harrison produced an envelope, which he laid on Sir Edric Conway's table. “That contains the three cheques in question,” he said. “With them are genuine cheques drawn by Sir Wilfred and Mr. Kirby, for purposes of comparison. You will also find the letter of introduction from Messrs. Wigland and Bunthorne, and the numbers of the notes issued to Malcolm Dredger, who, apart from being a consummate rogue, appears to have been a very capable forger. I need hardly say how fervently I hope that you may be able to trace him.”

“There won't be any difficulty about that,” Arnold replied, in a tone of triumph which he made no attempt to conceal. “We know where to lay our hands on Dredger. In fact, he is at this very moment under the observation of the police.”

XVIII

The arrest of Dredger followed as a matter of course. Immediately upon the conclusion of the interview Arnold went to Blackdown and saw the local police. Dredger, loudly protesting his innocence, was taken into custody.

Meanwhile the documents supplied by Mr. Harrison were submitted to the handwriting experts, with a request for report as soon as possible. Arnold received this that same evening, and, having read it through, rang up Merrion and asked him to come to the Yard. On his arrival he told him of the forgery and the steps which had been taken. Finally he gave him the report. “Now see if you can make head or tail of that,” he said. “For I confess I can't.”

The report was as follows:

1. The cheque drawn by Cecil Kirby in favour of Malcolm Dredger. This has been compared with genuine cheques drawn by Mr. Kirby, and with a receipt signed by Malcolm Dredger. (This was the receipt given to Arnold by Mr. Torrance.) The conclusions arrived at are as follows:

The body of the cheque, that is the name of the payee and the amount, is in a disguised handwriting closely resembling Mr. Kirby's but distinguishable from it by certain peculiarities.

The signature is an excellent imitation of Mr. Kirby's. It must have been written by some person who was familiar with the type of pen and the ink habitually used by him. But we have no hesitation in declaring the signature to be a forgery.

The endorsement, though it bears some resemblance to the signature of Malcolm Dredger on the receipt, is, in essentials, a very poor imitation of it. The endorsement is undoubtedly forged. It, however, exactly resembles the signature “Malcolm Dredger” contained in the specimen signature supplied by the bank.

There is reason to believe that the body of the cheque, the signature and the endorsement were written by the same person at the same time. This person, for convenience, may be referred to as the forger.

2. The cheque drawn by Wilfred Saxonby in favour of Malcolm Dredger. This has been compared with genuine cheques drawn by Sir Wilfred, with the cheque numbered 1, and with the receipt previously mentioned. The conclusions are as follows:

The body of the cheque is in a disguised handwriting, resembling, but easily distinguishable from, that of Sir Wilfred. It was almost certainly written by the same person on the body of cheque 1. This makes it probable that only one forger is implicated. But the resemblance of the false to the real is not so close in cheque 2 as in cheque 1.

The signature of the cheque is undoubtedly genuine. By no test has it been possible to discover any disparity between it and Sir Wilfred's usual signature.

The endorsement is exactly similar to that of cheque 1 and to the specimen. It is certainly the work of the forger.

There is reason to believe that the body of the cheque and the endorsement were written by the forger at the same time. The signature appears to have been written some time previously.

3. The cheque drawn by Wilfred Saxonby and Malcolm Dredger in favour of Malcolm Dredger. This has been compared with cheques 1 and 2, and with the specimen signature. The conclusions are as follows:

The body of the cheque was written by the forger in the handwriting of the alleged Malcolm Dredger. It bears some resemblance to specimens of the handwriting of the real Malcolm Dredger, supplied by Messrs. Wigland and Bunthorne. But the disparity between the false and the true can easily be demonstrated.

The signature “Wilfred Saxonby” is undoubtedly genuine. But it was written a day or two before the body of the cheque and the second signature. The latter is the work of the forger, and is exactly similar to the endorsements on cheques 1 and 2.

The endorsement is also the work of the forger, similar in every respect to his other copies of Malcolm Dredger's handwriting. But it was written after the body of the cheque and the second signature, and blotting-paper was applied to it as soon as written.

4. The letter of introduction. The only written portions of this are the signatures. That of Wilfred Saxonby is undoubtedly genuine. That of Irene Wardour has been compared with the signature on a letter supplied by Inspector Arnold. (This was the letter to Quince.) In this case also there is no doubt of the genuineness of the signature.

“Well, what do you make of it?” asked Arnold, when Merrion had completed his perusal of the report.

“I shouldn't like to answer that question offhand,” replied Merrion diplomatically. “If your people are right, as I expect they are, that report suggests the most amazing conspiracy I ever heard of. And a devilishly ingenious one, too. For the moment, if you don't mind my saying so, the most obvious thing about it is that it lets out the unhappy Dredger.”

“On the charge of forgery, perhaps,” said Arnold grimly. “But now that I've got him safely under lock and key, I'm going to keep him there. I've found out a bit more since I saw you last. That letter to Quince was typed on a machine belonging to him. What about that?”

“That may turn out a valuable clue, though perhaps not quite in the way you expect. But what's your theory about this forgery?”

“It was carried out by somebody who had been spying on Sir Wilfred and Kirby. That's plain enough. He had overheard Sir Wilfred's suggestion of co-operation, and decided to use this for his own ends. Somebody who had access to cheques signed in blank by Sir Wilfred. Since he only came up to town occasionally, I expect he left a supply of blank signed cheques with his cashier. That accounts for his being the only genuine signature among the lot.”

“Possibly. But what about cheque 3? How did he come to sign a cheque that wasn't his?”

“That puzzled me for a bit, but I've got it now. His signature was the first thing to be written upon it. Now look at these cheques, they came back from the experts with the report. 2 is out of Sir Wilfred's own book, 3 is out of the book supplied by the bank to the forger. But they are exactly similar, except for the printed serial number. If this cheque number 3 had been slipped in among others from Sir Wilfred's book, and given to him to sign, he would never have noticed that the numbers did not run concurrently.”

Merrion smiled. “Ingenious,” he said. “But I'm not quite sure that that is exactly what happened. And what about the signatures on the letter of introduction, which are also genuine?”

“That letter is written on one of half a dozen sheets of paper signed by Mrs. Wardour. I'll tell you about that later. Sir Wilfred was induced to add his signature to hers before the letter was written.”

“He seems to have been a person of a trusting disposition. I wish I could share your opinion that it will turn out to be as simple as all that. What bearing do you suppose this forgery has upon Sir Wilfred's death?”

“A fairly obvious one, it seems to me. Sir Wilfred was murdered to give the forger time to get clear away. Kirby was abroad and would not be back for some days after cheque 3 was cashed. But Sir Wilfred might discover the fraud at any moment. He might call at the bank, or Harrison might communicate with him. As it is, his death means that the forger has eight days' start of us.”

“So that the forger was also a murderer? He was, in fact, A or B?”

“I don't think there can be any doubt about that,” Arnold replied.

“I agree with you there. The murder of Saxonby was obviously premeditated, as we know from the preparations made in advance by his murderers. It looks very much as though the forgery and the murder were parts of one and the same conspiracy, as you suggest. And yet, somehow, I don't believe they were. I believe that they were two separate conspiracies, having this in common, that either A or B was concerned in both.”

“How do you make that out?”

“I can't quite make it out just yet. But I believe I'm beginning to see a ray of daylight.”

Merrion walked over to the inspector's table, upon which the documents mentioned in the report were laid out. “There are a whole lot of points which want explaining,” he continued. “Here's one to begin with. The forger was a master of his art. He deceived the bank authorities. You say that Kirby admitted that he could not tell the signature on the forged cheque number 1 from his own. Your experts speak of this signature as an excellent imitation. They say that the handwriting of the body of the cheque closely resembles Kirby's. Yet, apparently, the forger was unable to maintain this standard of excellence. Look at the report. The body of cheque 2 is in a handwriting merely resembling Saxonby's. Whereas the body of cheque 3 is in a handwriting which bears no more than some resemblance to Dredger's. Doesn't that strike you as peculiar?”

“Not necessarily,” Arnold replied. “The forger was better acquainted with Kirby's writing than with either of the others.”

“Yet he was on such confidential relations with Saxonby that he could get hold of cheques signed by him. No, I believe this falling off in skill was deliberate. Take his attempt at copying Dredger's hand, for instance. If you compare the false with the true, you'll see that it doesn't need an expert to point out that it is a very poor attempt indeed. I think I could undertake to do as well myself.”

“It didn't matter much, for the bank people were not familiar with Dredger's writing.”

“No. But the forgery was bound to be detected sooner or later. Then, as has actually happened, the handwritings would be compared. That test alone would be sufficient to exonerate Dredger. On the other hand, everything possible seems to have been done to implicate him in the murder. That's one reason why I think that the forgery and the murder were two separate conspiracies. The forgers merely made incidental use of Dredger's name. He had been a confidential employee of Saxonby's, and it would cause no surprise if he were to employ him again when he required a trusted intermediary. But the murderers, as everything shows, have done their best to make him their scapegoat. Look here, let's try to think what would have happened if Saxonby hadn't been murdered.”

“It would have made things a lot easier for us. He would have been certain to discover the trick within a day or two. He would have declared that he had not authorised the filling in of cheques 2 or 3, or the writing of the letter of introduction. And he could have told us who might have stolen the signed cheques and notepaper. That may have been one reason why he was murdered.”

“It may have been. But let's suppose for a moment that you are Sir Wilfred Saxonby, alive and well after the discovery of the forgery, and that I am Inspector Arnold, seeking information from him. I have still a few questions to put. In the first place, when did you learn that Kirby was going abroad on November 9th?”

“I suppose the answer to that is, Kirby announced his intentions to me a week or two ago, when we were lunching together.”

“You had quite forgotten your previous resentment against Kirby?”

“Obviously, since recently we have been in the habit of meeting for lunch fairly frequently.”

“Do you not consider it peculiar that these events should have taken place at a time when your son, your daughter and your secretary were all out of London, in each case their absence being due to your own suggestion?”

“The forger probably took advantage of their absence to effect his purpose.”

“Kirby's absence was also essential to him. In fact, the coincidence of these absences in his favour is remarkable. You were in the City on Tuesday, November 12th, as your niece has informed us. Can you tell me how you occupied your time that day?”

“In my accustomed duties at my office, of course.”

“May I point out that it was the day upon which the Malcolm Dredger account was opened at the bank? Now, let me call your attention to the section of the report dealing with cheque 3. Observe the order in which it was written. First, your signature, a day or two before the body of the cheque and the forger's signature. Lastly, the endorsement, hastily blotted as though the forger were pressed for time. I suggest that you must have signed this cheque no later than Tuesday, the 12th?”

“I have already told you that I must have signed it inadvertently, among other blank cheques presented to me for signature.”

“Including cheque B, drawn by you in favour of Malcolm Dredger?”

“Yes, I suppose so.”

Merrion laughed. “I thought I should lead you into that trap,” he said. “You can't have signed 2 and 3 at the same time. The forger had 2 in his possession before he went to the bank. He could not have obtained the form on which 3 is written until the account was opened. You must, then, have signed two separate batches of cheques, one before the forger went to the bank and one afterwards.”

“That's quite likely,” Arnold replied, in some confusion.

“If so, quite a considerable percentage of your time at the office must have been spent in signing cheques. Let us pass on to the next point. In the case of 1 and 2, the forger endorsed the cheques at the same time as he forged them. He did not do this in the case of 3. Can you suggest the reason?”

“No, and can't see that the fact is of the slightest sig-
nificance.”

“But I can. Now, one last question. Look at these three cheques. You will observe that 3 has been folded in half, while 1 and 2 have not. How do you account for that?”

This last question was too much for Arnold's patience. “Oh, damn it all!” he exclaimed. “Do you think I should have asked Sir Wilfred such a fool question? How could he be expected to account for it?”

“Because he folded the cheque himself. But your imaginary answers have been far too conscientious. Saxonby, had he lived to be questioned, would have pointed out that since his supposed writing of the body of cheque 2 was admittedly a forgery, it followed that his signatures on 2 and 3 were forgeries as well. He would have maintained that the experts were wrong in believing the signatures to be genuine, and we must admit that possibility ourselves.