PART – III
In the story of the ADVENTURE OF BLUE CURBUNCLE a precious diamond, belonging to the Countess of Morcar, was lost from her room at the Hotel Cosmopolitan. Just a few days prior to the Christmas, Holmes came to know of the case from newspaper reports, where it was also mentioned that John Horner, a plumber, was accused for stealing it. James Ryder, upper attendant at the hotel, gave evidence that he had shown Horner upto the dressing room of the Countess upon the day of the loss. He left Horner there and was called away. On returning, he found that Horner had disappeared. Horner was arrested and trial was in progress. These were all in the newspaper reports. Meanwhile, Peterson, the commissionaire ( a policeman ) brought to Holmes one hat and a goose which he found somewhere. Holmes kept the hat and gave away the goose to Peterson for Christmas enjoyment. While Holmes and Dr.Watson were discussing about the hat and Holmes, to the astonishment of Dr. Watson was explaining certain characteristic features of its owner, Peterson rushed into the room with a jewel which he found in the corp of the goose. Holmes immediately recognized it as the Blue Curbuncle belonging to the Countess. He locked it up in his strong box and hinted to drop a line to the Countess to say that he had it. Then he started his investigation all by himself and ultimately got a private confession from James Ryder, the hotel attendant, that it was he, and not Horner the plumber, who had actually stolen the jewel from the Countess. We come to know from the narration that Holmes allowed Ryder, the actual thief to go away scot-free and did not hand him over to the police. In fact, he made quite a show in front of Dr. Watson throwing out Ryder from his house and made a statement in excuse of his action. His justification was that he had not been retained by the police and therefore had no obligation to supply their deficiencies. According to him, Horner, who was arrested on the charge of stealing the jewel, would be released as Ryder would not any more appear in court as a witness and the case would collapse. So, by releasing Ryder, he had actually saved a soul (meaning Ryder) without doing any injustice to Horner. In his own words, he was, by such action, commuting a felony. From the story of “A STUDY IN SCARLET”, we come to know that Holmes had a good practical knowledge of the British Law. He was, in this case, in possession of a stolen property, without informing either the police or the true owner. Holmes himself was very well aware, but did not disclose that, under the law, Ryder could not escape appearance in court and also could not retract his earlier statement made before the police. If he failed to appear in court, a non-bailable warrant could be issued for his arrest and if after appearing he retracted his earlier statement, he would become the prime suspect. Therefore , it does not stand the test of logic that Ryder would not appear in court as a witness and that the case against Horner, the plumber, would collapse and he would be released by the court. Thus Horner, even after such assurance from Holmes, remained in danger of being punished for a crime not committed by him. At the least, Horner would not be able to avoid harassment in the hands of the police. His reputation would be in jeopardy and he would suffer immensely, even if, he was released by the court of law on the grounds of benefit of doubt. Holmes’ justification of his action, therefore, fails. There would not have been any doubt as to his good and genuine intention, had he, immediately as he got the jewel from Peterson, the policeman, informed the police and the Countess and explained how it came into his possession. Peterson and Dr. Watson were his witnesses. He could also advise Peterson to go to the police station with the jewel and hand it over to them. Moreover, everybody would have accepted the statement from so renowned and famous a detective as Sharlock Holmes. Such action would have secured safety for both Horner, the plumber and Ryder, the hotel attendant. And the question of Ryder’s not appearing in court would not have arisen at all. Therefore, there remained a doubt about his motive and intention. Why was he so indulgent about James Ryder, the real thief ? It appears from his action that either he wanted to keep the valuable jewel for himself or extract a higher reward from the Countess than she promised. Infact, he made a remark that there were reasons which would induce the Countess to part with half her fortune to recover the Gem. Jmaes Ryder, most probably, was one of his accomplices. It was easy to hoodwink the naive and credulous Dr. Watson by enacting the drama with James Ryder and then giving a sermon on social justice, forgiveness and saving a soul. It is evident that Peterson, the policeman, was equally gullible. When he got the jewel, he did not go the police station direct and inform his higher authorities, but instead went to Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Homes, whatever was his reputation, was not a government officer and had no authority to deal with a matter relating to items lost and found. Peterson, as a policeman, must have been aware of this. Therefore he, by bringing the Gem to Holmes and handing it over to him, had acted in an unauthorized manner. Therefore , if per chance, he tried to raise a question against Holmes at a later stage, nobody would believe him and he would have lost all credibility. Moreover, he would be charged on the count of negligence in discharging his duties and even for abetment of the crime of theft. So, Peterson’s mouth was sealed for ever. In all other stories Dr. Watson gave complete details of the reactions of the police and the clients and of their respectful admiration for Holmes. But, in the instant case, when so valuable a jewel, was recovered, the Doctor not only kept silent but totally ignored to mention a single word of appreciation either by the Countess or the police. Therefore it is doubtful whether Holmes did part with the jewel and the Countess ever got it back.
(….to be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment