The Verdict Was "Not Proven"

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 225, 21 September 1940, Page 4 (Supplement)

The Verdict Was "Not Proven"

By K. Fogarty

THE Ardlamont murder mystery case of 1890 is one of extreme interest, in that although there was plenty of evidence pointing to the alleged guilty party, together with a motive, the accused left the court a free man. The verdict was "not proven." It was a mutual friend, Mr. Tottenham, who was responsible for the' introducing of Mr. Monson to a certain Major Hambrough. The major was a highly respected person with a considerable income which he derived from the .interest of a large estate. Being an extravagant man he had been compelled to hand over the interest to an insurance company, as a email proportion of the sum that he owed the concern. Mr. Tottenham would have described himself as a financier. His career had been a varied one. In fact he had been almost everything that a man could be and yet survive. Mr. Tottenham's primary interest was horse racing, and it was through this medium that he became acquainted with Mr. Monson. But whereas Mr. Tottenham possessed a considerable amount of this world's goods, Monson was practically penniless. In Spirit of Charity It must have been a spirit of charity that induced Tottenham to introduce Monson to the major as a suitable tutor for his son Cecil. The fee for his services was to be £300 per annum. Monson was to board the 17-year-old youth at his own home for an indefinite period. The matter of payment was to be left until Major Hambrough's financial position improved sufficiently to enable him to do so without inconvenience. The major greeted the arrangement wholeheartedly and Cecil duly went to live with Mr. Monson in Yorkshire. * Mr. Monson over-reached his duties' when he began to take all descriptions of activities on behalf of the boy's father, which would not have been expected of a tutor. Possibly actuated by honourable motives he concerned himself with the major's property. This led to trouble. Negotiations on behalf

of the major realised about £150,008, when he repurch from an insurance company the life interest of the major's estate. Major Hambrough accused him of trying to secure the interest for his own benefit. Mr. Monson withdrew from the negotiations. The major said that the tutor had alienated the affections of his eon, and refused to have any further dealings with him. Cecil would not leave the Monson household and even suggested that he would like to make some return for the insults. Action and Counter-Action Mr. Monson then turned to Tottenham for financial help. About three years later Mrs. Monson brought an action against the boy's father for fSOO maintenance. In return for a small sum of money lent to Monson by him Tottenham took possession of the £800 cheque paid by the major From time to time, with Cecil's support, the Monsons brought actions against the major, while Tottenham profited. But Mr. Monson was no fool . . . If Cecil were to die . . . ? So he secured an insurance policy for the boy at £20,000. Cecil wrote the letter to the company saying that as a return for hospitality of the Monsons lie wished in the event of his death that the £20,000 would become the property of Mrs. Monson. After a time Cecil and the Monsons went to live at _ Ardlamont House in Argyllshire. A guest at this house was a Mr. Scott. Cecil proposed to buy a yacht off this man, so the three went to Ardlamont Bay 'one day to view the vessel. "Accident"—And Death! Mr. Scott remained on the shore while Monson and Cecil rowed out " to the yacht. The boat became full of water, and sank. The occupants were left tp struggle for their lives. Fortunately

ihis accident occurred near the shore, for while Mr. Monson was a proficient ewimmer, Cecil could not swim a stroke. He got out with difficulty. When the boat was later examined a large hole was found cut in th« bottom. In the dinghy a clasp-knife was found which bore a remarkable resemblance to on© owned by Scott. Cecil regarded the affair as a joke. Next day, at six o'clock, Mr. Monson, Cecil and Scott left for a day's shooting. Three hours later Cecil Hambrough was dead. According to Monson, the boy had wandered off by himself. When the remainder of the party heard a shot they went to look for the boy. There he lay in a ditch between two fields. He was bleeding profusely from a bullet wound in the forehead. Cecil died in the arms of Mr. Monson. The only theory Monson had was that Cecil must have slipped while jumping across the ditch and his gun discharged. This supposition was readily accepted by the local doctor, who gave'the death certificate. Mr. Monson immediately wrote to the insurance company while young Hambrough's body was still in the house. The Procurator Fiscal, whose signature was essential, refused, when he heard of the £20,000 policy, to sign any document. Now there would have to be an inquiry. In his statement Monson had declared that he and Scott found Cecil in the ditch. There were no marks in the ditch to suggest that anybody had fallen into it. It was concluded, therefore, that Cecil must have met his death.on the high ground above the ditch. The shot extracted from the boy's head was found to be identical with .the size of that used only by Monson on the fatal day. Further, the pellets had entered his head and not the body as -is customary in such tragedies. The wound indicated that someone else must have fired the shot from a range of 12 feet. Mr. Monson was charged with murder. He stood his trial, at Edinburgh. For several days the jury to the evidence—and decided the charge was "not proven." Despite the strong circumstantial evidence Monson was acquitted, the richer by £20,000. '