Cat Among the Herrings by L. C. Tyler Read Free Book Online Page B

Cate, he could read both English and Latin, and so was in no doubt. But he set no great store by any of that. The Herring Field was his, and he had as much right to it as anyone else did to their land. The Queen herself would have to ask permission to drive her cattle across it. On the day John Gittings was killed he had gone to Itchenor on business. He had heard that a boat was for sale cheap, but when he got there nobody knew anything about it and he had returned home. Plenty of folk would have seen him in Itchenor, as they would know if the authorities had bothered to enquire properly. He knew that the constable had visited Itchenor, but suspected that he had spent all his time there in the alehouse. (‘That’s a lie!’ from the constable.) He had not been to the Herring Field for some days. He had lost his knife the day before – he thought on the green, where he had been mending nets. It was a good knife and he had been sorry for it. Nor had he been near the church that day, even if George Gittings claimed to have seen him there. He had certainly been there the previous day. He had laid flowers on the grave of his sister, Morgan Blanch, recently deceased in childbirth. But he had not been there since.
    The judge asked who had told him that a boat was for sale. Pagham replied that somebody had left a note at his cottage. The sea was too rough for fishing that day, so he had walked over to Itchenor. Along the coast? asked thejudge. No, by the Chichester Road, he replied. He had been nowhere near the field. Where had he learnt Latin? asked the judge. Pagham said he had taught himself. He didn’t claim to know a lot. The judge commented that it must be very useful to him in the classification of the fish that he caught (laughter). Pagham asked the judge if he knew the Latin name for mackerel. The judge said that he did not and he very much doubted the accused did either. ‘ Scomber scombrus ,’ said Lancelot Pagham. No reply from the judge is recorded.
    The judge, having been put firmly in his place by the defendant, proceeded to instruct the jury. They were, the judge said, to bring a guilty verdict only if they were certain of their facts. There was some dispute as to whether Lancelot Pagham had been seen at the church that day – they had to decide whether to believe the testimony of the wretched man accused of murder or that of a prominent local landowner, whose respectability had been vouched for in court and who had no possible reason to lie. Had the accused walked by the church (perhaps inspecting Latin inscriptions on the way) and not directly to Itchenor as he claimed, then he would have had every opportunity to go via the bleak field that had been the scene of the murder. But it was the jury’s decision. He, the judge, would not try to influence them in any way.
    At this point George Gittings seems to have made some protest because he was told to be seated. Order restored, the judge continued. The existence of a continuing dispute over whether Mr Gittings’ cattle could be driven across Mr Pagham’s field seemed to be admitted. The jury might, if they chose, find that as a fact. The accused had, as theyknew, said that he would not let the Queen herself drive cattle over his land. That seemed improbable (much laughter) but they might conclude from it that he was a proud and overbearing man, quick to take offence, and with too high an estimation of his own worth. That alone did not mean he was a murderer, of course. Nor did the fact that his parents had named him after a knight of the Round Table have any bearing on the matter. (Laughter.) Nevertheless, there was no doubt that his knife was the murder weapon. It had been identified by the notch on the handle. It had been thrown down in haste. It was for them to decide whether Pagham himself had used it or whether he had, as he claimed, rather conveniently lost it the day before. Was it likely that a fisherman would lose a valuable possession of that sort