The Washington times., 1920-05-30
fcostssssd from Preceding po0e)

well. yes" admitted. Il GER
tsinly thought Il was uncle that !
saw, though even before to-day !
{, began to have q doubt about Il
after uncles saying that he did not
90 out. I hardly knew what to
think. But II II was not uncle who
else could IL have beenY"
-Ah. we will come to that imme-
diateiy. II you please. Let Us leave
Il for the moment like this-with
regard to Number One point. OF the
three that We noted. we are uncer-
tain"
'swell." I agreed. Il will consent
to leave II 30, but with regard to
Number Two. you are quite certain
that the print vas Of Uncle Ralph's
shoer'
"Of that / am certain" he re-
piled, 'but what ! am far from GER
tain ID whether Sir Ralph's foot
was In the shoe when the impress
sion was made"
He explained to me then that he
had been ut pains to obtain from
: Celeste the information that Grain
ser was In the habit Of wearing his
masters discarded shoes, and also
he had taken an occasion when
Granger was on an errand In the
village to 90 to his bedroom and
ascertain that the paper pattern
which he had taken Of the slender
shos-print fitted exactly one OF
palr which Granger wore in the
house.
OF course, I saw by this time
whittier his conjecture pointed.
His idea was that 1t was Granger.
not Uncle Ralph, that I had seen.
and. the two being much of q fis-
ure, and I being now uncertain
whether the figure that ! saw was
n IN cvercoat or without one, In a
hat or bareheaded, I was very
9 ready, ~ ! was also very willing,
TO believe had been mistaken. /
said ~ much to the sergeant. "But
then" was obliged to add, "what
about the third point?"
with regard to the third point
the evidence that Celeste and
Jim Heasden saw Sir Ralph con-
: slider that to be even more uncer-
tain and unreliable than either Of
those others which we have ex-
amined already"
But" I objected, "the moon was
bright and they both saw him."
Pardon me- he corrected, "the
moon was bright, and they both
say that they saw him. That would
be the more accurate statement.
would It not?"
"You mean that they might have
invented the story, they might
have lied, they might have agreed
to Her
"That is exactly what I do
mean," he declared emphatically.
"BHt I don't understand" l said.
"What would be their object? And
what would Granger be doing? II
he looked into the Summer-house
he would have seen-why did he
not give the alarm?"
"Miss Carlton" said the little
man, "if you will allow me I will
try to reconstruct, as the French
say, not the crime itself, indeed,
but some OF the happenings OF that
Friday night between IL o'clock
and midnight. am not pretend
ing, please to understand, to be in
fallible-I leave that to those won
derful detective fellows that we
read about. But I will give you my
own theory, for what 1t may be
worth, Of how certain things oc-
CURED.
"To begin with, have very little
doubt that you were mistaken In
your idea that you saw Sir Ralph
cross the gravel sweep. Just as ]
was mistaken In my idea that 1t
was Sir Ralph who had looked in
at the Summer-house window.
Apart from the fact that Sir Ralph,
who Ia a man OF honor, denied that
he had been out OF the house, what
motive could he have had for deny
ing that he had been out. even IL
It were true, for harmless moon
light stroll? And what motive
would he have for approaching the
Summer-house in the stealthy man.
ner which is suggested by the look
ing in at the window? Why did
he not go straight up to the door
and throw II open? And IL for
some inscrutable motive he did