The Mammoth Book of Unsolved Crimes

THE MYSTERY OF THE POISONED PARTRIDGES by C. J. S. Thompson

Who murdered young Lieutenant Hubert Chevis, and why? The case is as impenetrable now as it was in 1931. It is also one of the most sinister, since the murderer not only rejoiced at the agonizing death of Chevis but took equal delight in cruelly taunting his grieving family with exclamations of“Hooray!” The identity of the person behind the nom de meurtre J. Hartigan remains as bafflingly obscure as the motive for the murder. Charles J(ohn) S(amuel) Thompson was the author of two books of poisoning cases in the 1930s.

How did a brace of partridges which had been cooked and served for dinner become impregnated with strychnine was a problem that was presented to a coroner’s jury during the inquiry into a remarkable poisoning case at Blackdown Camp near Aldershot?

In June 1931, Lieutenant Chevis, a young artillery officer, was occupying a bungalow at the camp where he was engaged on his military duties.

He was very popular in his regiment and was happily married; his wife having a flat in London, she often joined him with their two children at the bungalow at Blackdown.

On Saturday, 21 June 1931, a brace of partridges was ordered from a poulterer at Aldershot and they were delivered at the bungalow in a van. They were placed by the cook in an open meat-safe kept outside the building, and there they remained until they were required for dinner in the evening.

Late in the afternoon some friends called to see Lieutenant Chevis and his wife, and after having cocktails they remained chatting for some time.

After they had left, Lieutenant and Mrs Chevis sat down to dine early, as they intended to go to the Military Tattoo which was taking place that night.

The dinner was brought in by the batman, who placed the roasted partridges before Mrs Chevis who was seated at the table, and she proceeded to serve them. Lieutenant Chevis took one mouthful and exclaimed: “It tastes horrible!” and he refused to eat any more. He asked his wife to taste the bird to see if she found anything wrong with it. She just touched it with her tongue and said it tasted “fusty” and could not get the taste out of her mouth for a long time afterwards.

Lieutenant Chevis then ordered the batman to take the birds away and have them destroyed. Fifteen minutes later he was taken violently ill. He lost the use of his legs and terrible convulsions followed. A doctor was sent for and the lieutenant was at once removed to hospital, where he died in great agony early on the following Sunday morning.

Mrs Chevis was also taken ill shortly after the meal and was seized with severe pains. She was medically treated and eventually recovered.

The Coroner was notified and inquiries were at once set on foot by the police.

A further element of mystery was introduced into the case when it was learnt that a telegram had been received by Sir William Chevis, the father of the deceased man, on the day of his son’s funeral. It had been handed in at Dublin and contained the words: “Hooray. Hooray. Hooray.” On inquiry it was found that the form was signed on the back with the name “Hartigan” and the address of a well-known Dublin hotel. It further transpired that no one of that name was known at the hotel, nor had any person called “Hartigan” been staying there.

Another strange fact connected with the telegram was, it had been sent off before any announcement of the tragedy at Blackdown Camp had appeared in the Press. The matter was taken up by the police of the Irish Free State who, it was stated, had found that a man answering the description of the person who had handed in the telegram in Dublin had purchased strychnine from a local chemist.

The inquest on the body of Lieutenant Chevis was opened on 23 June, but was adjourned until 21 July for the analyst’s report. On 11 August it was resumed before a crowded Court by the deputy coroner for West Surrey.

In opening the proceedings he remarked that the evidence would clearly indicate the partridge as the means by which the poison had been conveyed. It was, however, a most unfortunate thing that both the partridges had been destroyed, especially the one served to Lieutenant Chevis, by his orders.

On the day of his funeral a telegram had been received at the house of his father, Sir William Chevis, who lived at Bournemouth, which contained the words: “Hooray. Hooray. Hooray.” It was not signed, but on the original form being obtained for inspection there was found on the back a signature and address which read: “J. Hartigan. Hibernia.” Although inquiries had been made by the Dublin police and every possible effort made, no trace could be found of the sender of the telegram, nor could his identity be established.

A photograph of the original telegram was published in the DailySketch, and on 2 August, a postcard was received addressed to “The Editor”, purporting to have been written in London on 1 August. It read:

Dear Sir,

Why do you publish the picture of the Hooray telegram.

J. HARTIGAN

This was followed by a further postcard addressed to Sir William Chevis and posted in Belfast on 4 August. It read:

It is a mystery they will never solve.

J. HARTIGAN Hooray.

“To add to the mystery,” the coroner continued, “the contents of the telegram were known to me before the last hearing, but it was deemed inadvisable to reproduce it at the last adjourned hearing. Although we thought this was assured, the telegram was published without consulting me or my officer.

“The great handicap in this case is that the bird was destroyed. Had that not been done the case was a simple one.”

Captain Chevis, brother of the deceased officer, was then called, and said that the “Hooray” telegram arrived at five p.m. on 24 June, the day of his brother’s funeral.

He did not know anyone in Dublin likely to send a telegram of the kind or anyone answering to the description which the telegraph clerk gave of the sender. His brother had never been in Ireland in his life.

Mrs Chevis in her evidence said she had given all possible information in connection with the inquiry. There were no telegrams belonging to her husband which might throw any light on the case.

Describing what took place at dinner on the evening of the tragedy, she said that her husband had two glasses of sherry after tasting the partridge, which he got for himself. Bulger, the batman, would have removed the dirty glasses and the cook would have washed them. She did not move them. The partridge she had on her plate tasted “fusty”, but there was no bitter, sharp or offensive taste. Both the partridges were cooked together in a tin and they were basted in the same fat.

She only took one mouthful and it was vaguely unsavoury. She was absolutely sure that her husband told Bulger to burn the partridge. He was very anxious that the dog should not get it. She knew no one of the name of Hartigan and no one in the household knew anyone of that name. Lieutenant Chevis, as far as she knew, had no friends or relatives called Hartigan.

Dr J.H. Ryffel, analyst to the Home Office, was then called and described the results of his examination of the contents of the stomach of the deceased man and of other articles removed from the bungalow. The latter included sink-water from the drains of the bungalow, a basin containing dripping, a vegetable dish containing peas and potatoes, an empty tin, a packet of gravy mixture, some anchovy sauce, a bag of flour and a tin of carbolic. He also examined some material from Mrs Chevis after she had been taken ill. This and similar material from Lieutenant Chevis were mixed together and gave a yield of strychnine corresponding to a total in the amount received of.3 of a grain. The material from Lieutenant Chevis contained a large amount of strychnine. He also found a small amount of strychnine in the dripping and more in the gravy, which was very bitter. There was no strychnine in the water or other materials.

“I concluded,” continued Dr Ryffel, “that the total quantity of strychnine associated with the partridges amounted to at least two grains. This is an extremely rough calculation and would depend on what other materials were employed. The total quantity would depend on the proportion of the bird eaten, which I understand was very small.”

In his view if only a small proportion of the bird had been eaten the quantity in the bird was very considerable.

The minimum fatal dose of strychnine was half a grain.

Dr Ryffel added that he had received three partridges taken from the cold stores of the company who sold the partridges to Lieutenant Chevis, but none of them contained strychnine.

The coroner asked the witness: “Supposing this bird had picked up strychnine when alive, could it have been absorbed sufficient to show the amount eaten by Lieutenant and Mrs Chevis?”

“I do not think so,” replied Dr Ryffel. “The only thing would seem to me that if a partridge had taken a large amount of strychnine material in its crop, after it was in cold storage the amount might have diffused into the bird.” He understood, however, that the crop was cleaned at the shop before the birds were sent out and would not be included in the cooking. He did not think the bird could have absorbed the amount of strychnine into its own substance because it would be dead long before. On the other hand, if strychnine was injected into the substance of the bird it would stay there and stay during the cooking. But this is not strychnine taken by the bird in life. It is strychnine inserted into it afterwards.

“Strychnine itself is very insoluble, but it would be slightly soluble in fat, and two birds basted in the same fat would certainly give a proportion of strychnine on the second bird after cooking.”

In answer to further questions, Dr Ryffel said: “Strychnine has to be absorbed from the intestines and when it is taken, as in this case, with a large amount of fat, the absorption is much slower than if taken by itself. The fact that Mrs Chevis’s symptoms did not come on till later would point to her having less and to the fact that she did not pass her food on as rapidly as her husband. Strychnine could be fatal within two hours, but in the case of Lieutenant Chevis it was fourteen hours, because he was kept alive by artificial respiration and he ultimately died of failure of respiration.”

A police-inspector of Camberley said he searched the bungalow and found nothing in writing connected with the case. He had searched the Poison Registers of chemists in Frimley, Farnborough, Bagshot and Camberley, but found no evidence of any sales of strychnine.

A brother-officer in the Royal Artillery stated that Lieutenant Chevis was very popular and as far as he knew he had no enemies. He saw Lieutenant and Mrs Chevis on the day of the fatal meal and they both appeared in perfect health and quite happy.

Nicholas Bulger, batman to Lieutenant Chevis, said he did not serve any drinks at dinner that night. Mrs Chevis served the partridges and he handed the vegetables. He came from the south of Ireland, but he did not know anyone of the name of Hartigan. He removed the bird and took it into the kitchen and gave it to the cook. Mrs Chevis told him to destroy it; not to burn it. When he took it to the cook, he said: “This is to be destroyed,” but she put it on the fire.

Mrs Yeoman, the cook, said that the safe in which the partridges had been kept was outside the bungalow and had no lock. She noticed nothing unusual about the birds. She had no friends in Ireland and did not know anyone of the name of Hartigan.

The manager of the firm who sold the partridges said they came from Manchuria. They had sold Manchurian birds for years and never had any complaints. They were delivered to the bungalow in a covered van which was kept locked.

The Coroner then summed up and said there was no doubt that Lieutenant Chevis died from asphyxia following the poison cased by eating the partridge. There was no evidence to show how the strychnine came to be in the birds. He had sifted all the evidence and could find nothing to lead him to any conclusion as to whether this was a case of accidental death, a foul murder, or whether it was a case of negligent dealing with things served up to eat as amounted to manslaughter.

The proper verdict was asphyxia following strychnine poisoning caused by eating partridge, with insufficient evidence to show how the strychnine came to be in or on the partridge. The jury, after a consultation of five minutes, returned with an open verdict.

What is the solution of the mystery involved in this extraordinary case? Misadventure may be ruled out, as even if the partridges had picked up strychnine in Manchuria, it could not have been absorbed into the flesh of the birds. It is also most unlikely that a poison such as strychnine could have got into the partridges by accident. It must, therefore, be concluded that the strychnine must have been deliberately introduced into the birds by some person with the object of killing both Lieutenant Chevis and his wife.

The Home Office expert in his evidence said he concluded that a considerable quantity of strychnine must have been present in the birds, and as the flesh was so strongly impregnated with the poison it would appear as if a solution had been injected.

Strychnine hydrochloride occurs in small white crystals, the maximum dose being one eighth of a grain. It is only soluble in about forty parts of water, but it dissolves in about eighty parts of alcohol. Its taste is characteristic and extremely bitter. Sprinkled on the back of a bird, even in the form of a powder, it would not be absorbed into the flesh. It is a drug so readily recognizable from the taste that even an enemy would hesitate before using it to murder an unsuspecting person.

An obvious question arises; does a clue lurk in the cruel telegram sent from Dublin to the father of Lieutenant Chevis? How did the sender of that message know of the tragedy before it was published in the Press? There could have only been one object in sending it, and that was to express the sender’s delight that the murderer had succeeded in his purpose.

No motive can be assigned for the perpetration of the crime, but the fact that the brutal telegram was addressed to the victim’s father shows that the sender knew the anguish it would cause.

Taking all the circumstances known into consideration, one is led to the conclusion that the murder was the work of a homicidal maniac who had a fancied grievance against the family.

Armed with a hypodermic syringe charged with a solution of strychnine, which could be made from the tablets sold for that purpose, he would watch for his opportunity. The meat-safe was open to anyone outside the bungalow, and it would be but the work of a moment to inject the contents of the syringe into the birds and to slip away without being seen. The strychnine would thus be absorbed into the flesh of the birds and the cooking afterwards would assist it.

That murder was intended there can be no doubt. Whoever the unknown miscreant may have been, he was never traced in spite of all the efforts of the police, and the mystery of the murder of the unfortunate young officer remains a mystery still.