“Friend Plain Talk, that epitaph will do very well. Nevertheless, one short sentence is wanting,” Upon which, Plain Talk said it was too late, the chiselled words being so arranged, after the usual manner of such inscriptions, that nothing could be interlined. “Then,” said Old Prudence, “I will put it in the shape of a postscript.” Accordingly, with the approbation of Old Plain Talk, he had the following words chiseled at the left-hand corner of the stone, and pretty low down:
“The root of all was a friendly loan.”
HERMAN MELVILLE: The Confidence-Man.
WHEN I WAS A SMALL BOY in Edinburgh the Sunday afternoon walk with my people was a weekly institution. We were Scottish Episcopalians—unlovely label—and as such free to enjoy fresh air and exercise even on the Sabbath. My Presbyterian contemporaries lived under a sterner rule. After a solid mid-day meal, they either dozed away the day of rest over an old volume of Good Words or were haled, flushed and irritable from the feast, to indigestive slumber at afternoon worship. I remember once, while summering with Free Kirk friends at the easterly fishing-village immortalised as the scene of the incomparable Lantern-Bearers, being an enforced partaker in these postprandial rites. The sermon, as I recall it, was upon an episode in the career of Abraham, involving his dealings with a damsel named Keturah, a subject as to which my maturer judgment suggests that the preacher was unhappily inspired. But it was not the backsliding of the patriarch that moved me, so much as the intriguing appellative of his handmaid; the name struck me as somehow ludicrous, and its frequent recurrence in the discourse, with a prolonged emphasis on the second syllable, soon reduced me to a state of suppressed laughter such as only youthful blood-vessels could safely have withstood. This unseemly levity of mine, painful to my good hosts, was by them imputed to my prelatic upbringing.
Sometimes our hebdomadal strolls had for their objective a certain suburban cemetery, a well-ordered dormitory of the dead, commanding from its terraced heights a wide and pleasant prospect. But I was not interested in the view; I liked the tombstones, and never ceased to marvel at their chaste design and infinite variety. Here were no harsh and grisly emblems of mortality, such as affright the young visitor to our city graveyards, no grinning skulls and cross-bones, no skeleton Deaths with painfully realistic darts. These Victorian Angels were perfectly genteel and ladylike, yet I thought their marble pinions but ill-adapted for celestial duties. The fat stone Doves, too, that perched so substantially upon tablets dedicated to the smaller tenants, how did they contrive to wing their lapidary flights? Although I was told that all the inhabitants were now on an equality, I chiefly regarded those who were handsomely housed in massive and imposing structures, preferring them to the occupants of meaner monuments. I had never heard of Mr. Shandy and knew nothing of his theory of names, but the inscriptions on the headstones appealed to me, and for the more striking and suggestive I would invent appropriate legends. Certain graves that in later years I visited with interest—those, for example, in which the victims of Dr. Pritchard and of M. Chantrelle await the calling of their testimony at the Great Assize—I then passed by unnoticed; but there was one that caught my fancy by reason of the arresting name of its proprietor: Dionysius Wielobycki. Who was he, this man of alien race, and why did he lie here among these kindly Scots under a designation so outlandish? Surely some story must attach to such an one: a mysterious story was, to speak medically, indicated; but I was at a loss to find any that satisfied me. And behold, in the fullness of time I chanced upon the veritable tale, which if less sinister than my young imagination conceived, is yet sufficiently curious to justify recital.1
The year 1857 notable in the judicial annals of Scotland as that in which Lord Advocate Moncreiff contended for ten summer days in the Justiciary lists with Dean of Faculty Inglis, before Lord Justice-Clerk Hope as umpire, the stake being the life of Madeleine Hamilton Smith, of attaching memory. Everyone knows how the splendid advocacy of Inglis saved the fair neck of that engaging pannel from the noose which Justice had prepared for it, an escape merited at least by the owner’s coolness and pluck. Fewer students of these matters are aware of an earlier duel in January of that year between those two great counsel before the same judicial referee, when the brilliant powers of the Dean were exerted in vain and the Advocate secured a conviction. But a middle-aged physician who had forged a patient’s will was plainly a less inspiring client than a beautiful damsel of nineteen who, with a skill and perseverance beyond her years, had freed herself by scientific means from an embarrassing entanglement. It has been said, I know not on what authority, that the Justice-Clerk being notoriously a good judge of feminine charms, the Dean advised Miss Madeleine, who had a neat foot and an undeniable ankle, to keep those assets well in view of the Bench at the trial, the crinoline of that day affording, as may be seen in old pages of Punch, special facilities for so alluring a display. The advice of counsel was followed with the happiest results for all concerned. That the turn of an ankle may powerfully affect its owner’s fate we have further proof in the case of Thomas Griffiths Wainwright who, as Hazlitt relates, when asked how he had found it in his heart to poison Helen Abercromby, his gentle and confiding sister-in-law, replied with a shrug of his sensitive shoulders: “Upon my soul, I don’t know, unless it was because she had such thick ankles!” In the present case, however, poor Dr. Wielobycki, for all the good his ankles could do, might as well have had a pair of wooden legs. “A bonny lass,” observed that profound philosopher, Mr. James Ratcliffe, à propos of Effie Dean’s chances of acquittal, “a bonny lass will find favour wi’ judge and jury, when they would strap up a grewsome carle like me for the fifteenth part of a flea’s hide and tallow, damn them!”
Born, as we learn from his tombstone, at Byten, Volhynia, Poland, in 1813, Dionysius Wielobycki, a political refugee from that explosive little country, came to this country in 1839. He took his degree of doctor of medicine at Edinburgh in 1843, his thesis being “On Plica Polonica.” His brother, Severin, who had graduated at the same university in 1841, was in practice in London. These facts appear in the medical directories and registers of the day1; from the evidence at the trial we know that Dionysius, before settling in Edinburgh as a homeopathic physician, spent some months in Hawick. Pursuing in the pages of old Edinburgh directories his professional and social progress, we find the first trace of him in 1846, when his address is given as No. 25 Montague Street, on the south side of the city. By 1849 he had risen to a New Town residence, No. 59 Queen Street, where he lived till 1851, when he removed to No. 55, of which he became proprietor. There he was living at the time of his arrest in 1857. For the next fourteen years the bearer being, as Cousin Feenix would say, “in another place,” the name of Dr. Wielobycki disappears from the Edinburgh Directory; but in 1871 he turns up again at No. 3 George Square, where apparently he resumed practice, until he retired for good in 1882. After that date his permanent address is the Grange Cemetery.
The Polish doctor was, as appears, a popular physician with a large practice, yielding him on an average £1200 a year—in those days a handsome income. As a homeopathist and a Knight of the Golden Cross (Virtuti Militari) he cut a conspicuous figure in the medical circles of the city. But although a fashionable physician, the Doctor was not above casting a professional fly in suburban waters, and none of his fine patients, as we shall see, had such an influence on his fate as an obscure family in Portobello.
In 1852 there flitted to that watering-place from Galashiels an aged woman named Mrs. Darling, with her three surviving children, Thomas, Margaret, and Isabella. The reason of their removal was, they alleged, twofold: because the town boys threw, presumably according to the season, stones and snowballs at their door, and because they disliked the advent of the railway. So in Rosefield Place, a row of quaint cottages off Brighton Place, hard by the station, our emigrants, unmolested by the more civilised youth of Portobello and indifferent to the proximity of passing trains, found at No. 1 a peaceful haven. The mother falling sick, the great Dr. Wielobycki was summoned from town; but despite the fact that, to the high satisfaction of the neighbours, the carriage of that distinguished practitioner might daily be observed in their sequestered quarter, the old woman, unconscionably, did not recover. Her three children were all well-stricken in years; Isabella, the youngest, was sixty. She appears to have been the only one of any mental capacity, and that to but a limited extent. It was her custom to write their letters, and even to sign their names for them when required. The management of their affairs had long been in the capable hands of Mr. William Rutherford, writer in Galashiels, who looked after their investments, and through whom they received the income. “When they left Galashiels,” says that gentleman, “they had £4200, and a house in Edinburgh, which they sold for £375.” Their old age was thus comfortably provided for, and so thrifty were their habits that they contrived to save out of income some £50 per annum. They were simple, homely folk, and in all business matters relied on Mr. Rutherford, in whom, justly, they had absolute confidence. On their removal to Portobello he continued to act for them as before.
It was therefore with considerable surprise that on 19th November 1855 Mr. Rutherford received from Thomas Darling a letter, written by Isabella, withdrawing their whole business from his agency in favour of “a gentleman who will in a few days open a correspondence on the subject.” This was followed on the 24th by a letter from Dr. Wielobycki, intimating that by request of Thomas he had undertaken the sole management of the family’s affairs, and telling him to forward any cash in his possession, to realise the investments, and to deliver the title-deeds of the house in Salisbury Street, Edinburgh, all as belonging to his clients. Mr. Rutherford went at once to Portobello to learn the reason for this extraordinary step. There he was told that “they [the Darlings] wished to put all their money into the hands of one gentleman,” who had promised them a higher rate of interest. The financial expert in question was, he ascertained, Dr. Wielobycki. Mr. Rutherford pointed out the impropriety of a physician intromitting with his patients’ monetary matters, and said that however competent he might be in his own profession, Dr. Wielobycki was not a man of business and should not be employed as such. But no argument he could use availed to affect their faith in the Doctor’s flair for finance, and not unwarrantably rather sore, Mr. Rutherford proceeded to Edinburgh to interview the pecuniary scientist. Interrogated as to his intentions, Dr. Wielobycki stated how he proposed to administer the trust: “He could get 10 per cent. from a Scotch Duke on heritable security.” Mr. Rutherford replied that the accommodating nobleman must be a very needy one, as 3½ per cent. was the current rate of interest on such loans. The Doctor then amended his statement: the borrower was “not a Scotch Duke, but a Scotch Duke’s factor.” Struck by something equivocal in the good physician’s manner, Mr. Rutherford with prophetic insight remarked, “I believe you are quibbling; you are going to deceive these people!” Whereupon the Doctor “got into a great passion and said he was a Pole and a gentleman,” and Mr. Rutherford left the house. On 12th December he received from Thomas Darling, in Isabella’s handwriting, a letter ordering him, in threatening terms, to send all their money to Dr. Wielobycki without further delay. The adoption of this minatory tone to a trusted friend of old standing bespoke, in the fullest sense of the term, an alien influence. Mr. Rutherford, who had only hesitated in his clients’ interests, agreed to give up the agency, but stipulated that he would not deliver the cash and securities except to a respectable agent. The Doctor then employed Mr. F. H. Carter, accountant in Edinburgh, to arrange the transference, and there for the time the matter rested.
Thomas Darling died in April 1856. By his will, which had been prepared by Mr. Rutherford, he left his property to his two sisters, Margaret and Isabella. Though Mr. Rutherford, after handing over the papers, etc., held no further communication with Portobello, he continued to act for the children of two deceased Darling sisters, Janet and Helen. On 16th October Margaret died intestate, so he wrote to Mr. Carter, intimating a claim on behalf of his clients to participate in their aunt’s succession, and asking for a state of her affairs. Dr. Wielobycki, having learned of this claim, wrote to Mr. Carter on 27th October that he had consulted Isabella, who begged him to get an opinion from the best counsel as to its validity. “Please also,” he wrote, “to disregard all remonstrances and demands made by Mr. R. on you or me until the opinion of our counsel is obtained.” Mr. David Wight, W.S., was accordingly instructed by Mr. Carter to prepare a memorial for the opinion of the Solicitor-General (Edward Maitland) and of Mr. Graham Bell, advocate, as to whether under the settlement of Thomas, Isabella succeeded to Margaret’s whole estate, or whether the claim of the dead sisters’ children to a share was good. On 3rd November each of the learned counsel delivered an opinion in favour of the children’s rights.
Tuesday, 4th November, is an important date in the case. On that day Dr. Wielobycki called upon Mr. Wight at his office, No. 11 Young Street, and introduced himself as the bearer of a letter from Miss Isabella Darling, addressed to Mr. Wight, in the following terms:—
1 Rosefield Place, Portobello.
4 November 1856.
Sir,—Being informed by Mr. Carter, accountant, that you are employed by him to ask the opinions of a counsel regarding the validity of my late brother Thomas Darling’s disposition, which was made in favour of my late sister Margaret and myself, with a right to equal shares of his property; and knowing that Mr. Rutherford, writer, of Galashiels, not finding in Mr. Carter’s office my late sister’s will, which I have found amongst her papers and which is written in her own handwriting, dated 21 August 1856, has shown unscrupulously intentions to annoy me by bringing forth presumptuous claims of some of his clients, I beg you therefore to suspend all further proceedings with the counsels, and inform Mr. Rutherford on the subject without delay.—Sir, I am yours,
ISABELLA DARLING.
Two things struck Mr. Wight: the peculiarly apt discovery of the will, and this business-like communication from a person of Isabella’s condition. Dr. Wielobycki then triumphantly exhibited the deed itself, which was as follows:—
I, Margaret Darling, residing at No. 1 Rosefield Place, Portobello, having along with my younger sister, Isabella Darling, by the disposition of our late brother Thomas Darling, a full right to the possession each of one half of his property left us by him, and for the love, favour and affection which I bear to my sister Isabella, dispone, give, and bequeath her solely and to the exclusion of everybody else, all goods, effects, debts, furniture, subjects, and property of every description which may belong to me at the time of my death: In witness whereof I have subscribed these presents, written by myself, at Portobello this twenty-first day of August, eighteen hundred and fifty-six.
MARGARET DARLING.
Mr. Wight rubbed his eyes: here was an illiterate old woman who could frame a settlement in technical terms as well as if she had been bred a Writer to the Signet! He describes as suspicious his attitude towards the document, which he handed back without remark to Dr. Wielobycki, who asked him to communicate to Mr. Rutherford the fact of its discovery, conform to Isabella’s instructions. On the 6th the Doctor returned with the will for the purpose of having it recorded, and it was sent by Mr. Wight to the Record Office. On the 10th Mr. Rutherford came to Edinburgh to inspect the lucky trouvaille, which he examined at the Register House and at once pronounced to be a forgery of Margaret’s writing by Isabella—he was familiar with their respective hands. Later, while in Mr. Wight’s office discussing the deed, the two lawyers were joined by Dr. Wielobycki who, despite his triumph, was disposed to be magnanimous, and greeted Mr. Rutherford with effusion. But that gentleman declined his proffered hand. “He asked me what I wanted,” says Mr. Rutherford, “and I said I wanted money. He said, ‘We all want money, if we could get it; but you can’t get it, for there’s a settlement.’ I said, ‘The settlement is a base forgery,’ and I accused him of having something to do with it. He said it was not in his handwriting, and I said I knew that as well as he did; but I said, ‘You have had a great deal to do with this document, and so much have you had to do with it that I think it is very likely both you and Miss Darling will be punished.’ ” “Are you aware that you put yourself and this poor woman in the position of both being transported?” is Mr. Wight’s version. Whereupon the Knight of the Golden Gross (Virtuti Militari) rejoined, “Do you mean to frighten me?” There is a venerable and flowing-bearded proverb which asserts that every man at forty is either a fool or a physician; it was the misfortune of Dr. Wielobycki to figure in both capacities. He dropped the will like a red-hot cinder and proceeded to discuss terms for the settlement of the children’s claims. Mr. Rutherford insisted on £1500, being two-thirds of Margaret’s estate, and the Doctor undertook to see Isabella and advise her to settle the matter on that footing. After Mr. Rutherford’s departure Mr. Wight remarked that the will must have been drawn by a lawyer, but the Doctor explained that he had himself furnished Isabella with a form. He left Mr. Wight under the impression that he was privy to the forgery.
On the 11th Dr. Wielobycki called to say that Miss Darling agreed to pay, and Mr. Rutherford was informed that the enemy had capitulated. “On the Monday afternoon,” says Mr. Wight, “he admitted he had been accessory to the fabrication. I said sneeringly, “You must have got a will made in your own favour!’ and he said he had already got one. This document, as afterwards produced, was as follows:—
I Rosefield Place, Portobello.
2 May 1856.
Dear Sir,—It having been our late brother’s Thomas Darling’s and our own sincere wish during his life to entrust you with a full management of our money affairs during our lives, we now jointly beg and authorise you to take care of our funds henceforward and all along by investing them in your own name according to the best of your means and disposition to me and my sister Margaret, both of us stating hereby solemnly the express wish of our late brother Thomas Darling as well as our own wish and will of the whole of our funds and property to become yours after our death.—We are, etc.
MARGARET DARLING.
ISABELLA DARLING.
To Dr. Wielobycki,
55 Queen Street, Edinburgh.
In addition to its other remarkable features, this “will” presents the further peculiarity of having been written by Isabella to Dr. Wielobycki’s dictation after the death of Margaret.
On 12th November Dr. Wielobycki met by appointment Messrs. Rutherford, Carter, and Wight at the latter’s office, and stated that he had been empowered by Miss Darling to settle, subject to payment of the debts due by the deceased, which was deemed reasonable. Asked what these debts were, the Doctor presented a note of his fees for medical attendance on Margaret, amounting to £231. After some debate it was agreed that the professional labourer was worthy of his hire, and Mr. Rutherford said he would accept £1200 in full of his clients’ claims, for which the Doctor gave his own cheque on the Royal Bank.
A bird of the air must have carried word of the matter to the authorities, for on 13 th November Dr. Wielobycki received from the Procurator-Fiscal a pressing invitation to call at his chambers and to produce the settlement of Margaret Darling. The Doctor returned the citation, endorsed by him as follows:—
Dr. Wielobycki has been suddenly called to Glasgow professionally this morning at 5 o’cl. & was obliged to start by the first train 7.30—has nothing to declare further, but that the document wanted was demanded back by Miss Darling & it was destroyed by herself—as it was of no use. Dr. W. will however call if wished on his return from Glasgow. Friday, 7 a.m.1
Arrested on 27th November on a charge of forgery, Isabella made upon examination what is popularly termed a clean breast, and the good physician’s game was up. On 3rd December the polite breakfast tables of Auld Reikie were startled by the following announcement in that morning’s papers:—
APPREHENSION OF DR. WIELOBYCKI.—We understand that Dr. Wielobycki, a homeopathic physician in extensive practice, residing at No. 55 Queen Street, has been lodged in jail for further examination on a charge of having some concern with a forged will, which it is alleged has since been destroyed. It is stated that Dr. Wielobycki had attended professionally two old ladies, Misses Margaret and Isabella Darling, residing at Portobello, and that some time ago they had given into his hands on loan at interest the whole of their property, amounting to about £4000. This property their brother, Mr. Thomas Darling, left equally between them, but to the survivor in fee; the effect of this provision being that had one of them died before him, the other would have been entitled to the whole property, but as he died first, it vested equally in the two sisters. Miss Margaret Darling died recently without having made a will, and her share of the money would have fallen to Miss Isabella and to the children of two sisters who resided in Galashiels but who have been dead for some time. The allegation is that a will was fabricated by which the whole of the property was left to Miss Isabella, Dr. Wielobycki still retaining the charge of it. On the will being shown to the parties interested they declared it to be a forgery, and it is stated that it has since been destroyed. We learn that the surviving Miss Darling is about to raise a civil action against Dr. Wielobycki for the recovery of her portion of the money.1
From the accuracy with which the facts are set forth we may assume that this paragraph was inspired.
The Doctor’s last voluntary appearance at the Sheriff Court was after Isabella had been committed for trial, when he found bail for her to the extent of £300, which he paid by his own cheque. One is reluctant to examine too closely the motive which prompted Dr. Wielobycki to this generous act, but it must be borne in mind that the money was really Isabella’s, and that as he did not know that she had already, as the phrase is, given him away, he doubtless hoped to prevail upon her to keep silence regarding his connection with her unlucky chirographic experiment. But his own arrest precluded the possibility of any further consultations with his old patient. A search at No. 1 Rosefield Place and No. 55 Queen Street resulted in the discovery of certain documents, which were taken possession of by the police; the Doctor was apprehended, and having been judicially examined, was committed on the charge.
Now Lord Advocate Moncreiff, as he afterwards explained to the jury, was in a position of some difficulty with regard to the prosecution of the accused persons, by reason of the peculiarities which the case presented. The forged document had been destroyed; if the two parties concerned in the forgery were placed at the bar, it would be no easy matter to bring the crime home to them, and the result might well be that both offenders would escape punishment.2 So in the exercise of his learned discretion his lordship, considering the relative positions of the accused, elected to put the doctor in the dock and the patient in the witness-box.
On Thursday, 8th January 1857, the High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh, was crowded by a refined audience, vastly intrigued by the development of what is known nowadays as a society sensation. The Lord Justice-Clerk (John Hope) presided, accompanied on the Bench by Lords Handyside and Deas. Lord Deas was not conspicuous for straining the quality of mercy; and though his neck was in no danger, the Doctor must have been relieved to find the amiable Justice-Clerk, and not that Draconic senator, was to be the arbiter of his fate. Dr. Wielobycki’s manner throughout the two days’ proceedings was marked, we are told, by firmness and composure. The prosecution was conducted by His Majesty’s Advocate (James Moncreiff), assisted by Mr. Donald Mackenzie, Advocate-Depute; the Dean of Faculty (John Inglis), with Messrs. Miller and Thomson, advocates, appeared for the accused. The pannel was charged with forging and uttering as genuine a testamentary deed, as set forth at great length in the cumbrous indictment of the time. It was drawn by Mackenzie1 who, associated six months later with Moncreiff in the prosecution of Madeleine Smith, also framed the indictment upon which that captivating damsel was tried. After a detailed narration of the facts with which the reader is already familiar, the charges, briefly stated, were as follows: (1) on a day between 24th October 1856 and 5th November 1856, forging, or causing to be forged, or assisting Isabella Darling to forge a will purporting to be written by Margaret Darling, and adhibiting her signature thereto; (2) on 4th November 1856, within the chambers of David Wight, W.S., uttering the said will as genuine, well knowing it to be forged, that it might be founded on as setting aside the rights of the next of kin; (3) on 6th November 1856, in the same place and to the same party, uttering the said will as aforesaid, in order that it might be recorded as a probative writ; (4) on 10th November 1856, in the same place, uttering the said will as aforesaid to William Rutherford, with intent to defeat the claims of his clients; and (5) on 13th November 1856, within the house at Rosefield Place, tearing, burning, or otherwise destroying the said forged will, as affording evidence of his guilt in the premises. The pannel having pleaded Not Guilty to these charges, and no objection being taken to the relevancy of the indictment, the case went to trial.
The first witness for the Crown was Sheriff Hallard, who had judicially examined the prisoner and taken his declarations. Two Sheriff-officers spoke to the arrest of Isabella Darling and of Dr. Wielobycki, and identified certain documents found in their respective houses. Mr. Rutherford was then called, and in reply to the Lord Advocate, described his dealings with the Darlings prior to the advent of Dr. Wielobycki, his supersession as their agent by that expert, the invention of the will, his repudiation of that fallacious document, and the settlement of his clients’ claims, all as before narrated. Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty, he thought the will occupied a page and a quarter; it was written on a large sheet of letter-paper. He did not remember whether it was signed on the first page. Isabella was in the habit of writing letters for Thomas, but not for Margaret. She was the most active member of the family and put herself more forward than the others. He had known them for twenty years. When he gave up the agency their money was all invested; £500 on heritable, and the rest on personal security. They were not on good terms with their nephews and nieces. Thomas’s settlement gave the two sisters all his property. At their first interview Dr. Wielobycki was very much excited; witness was not in the least so. “I thought he was going to deceive these people; and I said it would turn out to be a swindle, meaning that he would swindle them. He was much annoyed and excited. He did not order me to leave the house.” Re-examined, witness said he paid to Mr. Carter £3400 of the Darlings’ money.
Mr. Carter, examined by the Lord Advocate, said he was employed by Dr. Wielobycki to get the Darlings’ money from Mr. Rutherford. Witness told him he must have Thomas’s personal authority to do so, and the Doctor wrote, that if it were really necessary, “I could give you a drive in my carriage” for that purpose. On 17th June 1856 Isabella Darling wrote again, telling him to pay £1600 to Dr. Wielobycki, which he did. Asked how the sum was to be invested, the Doctor said, “on heritable security in Glasgow.” On 28th June he received from Dr. Wielobycki a letter in these terms:—
Dear Sir,—Misses Darling of Portobello have requested me this evening to say that they will be much obliged to you to get all the money due to them from the rest of the creditors collected without delay, as they have now an opportunity of getting it invested on more advantageous terms, or to deliver the papers and documents to me to employ a sharper agent, if you find any difficulty in dealing with Mr. Rutherford of Galashiels. I shall call at your office about it on Monday morning; and to give satisfaction to Misses Darling, who are anxious to get clear of the lawyers fast, please to prepare a final account with them for the management of their affairs by you hitherto, for their perusal.
“Before retiring on the ‘int,” in the Billickin’s polished phrase, Mr. Carter paid over to Dr. Wielobycki certain further sums, being the balance of the Darlings’ money in his hands. Witness then described the demand made after Margaret’s death, and the production of her will by the Doctor on the very day that counsel had advised in favour of the claim. When he heard of the discovery, he asked Dr. Wielobycki whether the will was holograph and explained to him the meaning of that term; the Doctor replied that it was so. Cross-examined by the Dean, witness said he received in all on behalf of the Darlings £3918. On 13th May 1856 he paid Dr. Wielobycki £120, 15s. for medical attendance on Thomas; on 18th June, £1600; on 9th July, £500; and on 31st July, £450. The will was written and signed upon a single page—a half-sheet of foolscap. Reexamined, in addition to the sums mentioned, witness paid direct to Isabella a further £750, which he afterwards learned she gave to Dr. Wielobycki, who got altogether £3420. The Doctor wrote to Isabella that “it was bold and improper in Mr. Carter to take any further steps without consulting me.” Dr. Wielobycki told witness that the Darlings had “a horror of lawyers,” and would not see one except in his presence.
Mr. Wight, in reply to the Lord Advocate, told how he was consulted as to the effect of Thomas Darling’s settlement and instructed to obtain opinion of counsel thereon; how Dr. Wielobyski introduced himself on 4th November, armed with Margaret’s will and the letter from Isabella intimating its discovery; and described the subsequent history of that document so far as known to him. Cross-examined by the Dean, Mr. Wight said that whenever he saw the will he remarked, “ ‘Surely, Doctor, this must have been prepared by a man of business? Did you give Miss Darling a copy of it?’ He said, ‘I had a copy of a will.’ ” It was written and signed on one page of blue foolscap, which it nearly filled. Personally, he knew nothing of the Darlings’ handwriting. The first time he saw the will it was not “backed up”; on the second occasion it was, and in the same hand as the body of the document.1 Witness told Mr. Rutherford that Dr. Wielobycki admitted he had “participated in the fabrication,” and the Doctor complained of his having done so.
Dr. Wielobycki’s own holograph settlement, found in his repositories, was then put in. It bore the fateful date of 4th November 1856—which, by the way, must have been a busy day for the Doctor—and is chiefly important as being identical in legal phrasing with the terms of the forged will.
Isabella Darling, examined by the Lord Advocate, described the deaths of her mother, brother and sister, and the transference of their whole property to Dr. Wielobycki. “The Doctor told us we would get better interest for our money if he had it.” At this stage the Lord Justice-Clerk informed the witness that as she had been called for the Crown, anything she might say as to her own share in fabricating the alleged will could never be used against her. Thus assured, Isabella resumed her tale.
After I heard the opinion of the lawyers in favour of my sisters’ children, some communication took place between Dr. Wielobycki and me as to making a will for my sister [Margaret]. I said to the Doctor I was sorry it had happened so, and I thought there would be no harm in writing a will for myself on a simple piece of paper. He said at first he thought it would be as well not to do it; but then he went in with me. The Doctor wrote a scroll of it for me and on the same night he said he would write a shorter scroll. This was some time after my sister’s death. I think we had spoken of doing it before. The scrolls were written in my house in Portobello. Dr. Wielobycki left me both scrolls and I copied one of them and signed my sister’s name to it. I burned the scrolls. When I saw the Doctor afterwards, I told him what I had done, and he said he would see if it would do.
The will as set forth in the indictment was that which she wrote from the Doctor’s scroll. He dictated to her the letter written by her to Mr. Wight announcing the discovery. Dr. Wielobycki, approving of her handiwork, took the will and the letter away with him. “The next thing I heard from him was that it would not do”: Mr. Rutherford said it was in her handwriting, not Margaret’s. In these regrettable circumstances the Doctor advised her to give up £1200 to the nephews and nieces, “and there would be no more about the will.” But here, as we have seen, the good physician’s diagnosis was at fault. He gave her back the document, which she burned after the settlement with Mr. Rutherford. “He [the Doctor] told me the Fiscal had been inquiring about it, and he asked several times if the Fiscal had been at me. He appeared to be anxious; and he told me to be sure never to mention his name, but to say it [the will] was made between my sister and myself.” The joint settlement of 2nd May 1856 by Margaret and herself in favour of Dr. Wielobycki was written by her to the Doctor’s dictation after her sister’s death, the signature of Margaret being appended by her. “The Doctor sat by my side telling me what to write, word for word. I never wrote a letter except at his dictation.” Though she had given her whole fortune to her medical adviser, she only received one quarter’s interest on her money: £45, from which the Doctor deducted £20 “for his trouble in lending it out.” He carried away all their savings in cash: £159 in half-crowns; £13 in crowns; £2, 10s. in florins; £18, 10s. in shillings; £5 in sixpences; and £172 in notes: in all £370. She also gave him the £750 paid over to her by Mr. Carter. She got no receipt or acknowledgment for any of these sums. Cross-examined by the Dean, she said that Mr. Rutherford was always honest and faithful; they were not dissatisfied with him. “We were told by the Doctor it would be much better to have a private gentleman to manage our affairs than a writer or man of business.” With regard to her habit of writing to the Doctor’s dictation, she said she could not express herself properly unless directed by a learned man. She put Margaret’s name to the will in favour of Dr. Wielobycki “to make it stronger: two names were better than one.” As to the forged will, she said, “I did not think I was committing forgery. As it was on a simple piece of paper and without witnesses, I thought the law would not take hold of me.” She knew that but for the will her nephews and nieces would have got the money. She had never said it was hard that the Doctor should be imprisoned on a charge he had nothing to do with: “the Doctor was the cause of her making the will.” When apprehended she at first denied all knowledge of the affair, but afterwards told the whole truth, as she had now done.
After some formal evidence as to the recording of the will, the giving out of an extract, and the return of the principal to Mr. Wight, James Milroy, law clerk, examined, said he was a patient of Dr. Wielobycki. On 4th November he met him in Elder Street. The Doctor asked whether a will dealing with movable property required a stamp? He answered, no. The Doctor then asked whether any particular form of words was necessary? He replied that any words clearly expressing the intention of the party would be sufficient. The next question was, did it need to be witnessed? “Yes,” said Milroy, “unless it is holograph”; and he explained the meaning of that term. Fortified by this legal opinion the Doctor went his way—presumably to Portobello. At this stage the Court adjourned.
When the trial was resumed next morning but one witness remained to be called for the prosecution: the borrower of the £1500. This turned out to be one Mr. Hernuelwicz, a Glasgow merchant and, as appears, a compatriot of the Doctor, who had represented him to Mr. Rutherford as a “Scotch Duke.” He described how the loan was negotiated, the security for which was taken in favour of Dr. Wielobycki. The declarations of the prisoner were then read. In the first, emitted on 27th November, with regard to the Glasgow loan he said he had intended to assign the bond to Miss Darling, when the buildings upon which it was secured were completed. Isabella never consulted him about making a will for Margaret. He never dictated anything to her, nor did he leave any paper for her to copy. When Isabella produced the will he made no inquiries; it was no business of his. The letter she wrote to Mr. Wight was her own composition; he had nothing to do with it. He denied that the conversations sworn to by Mr. Wight ever took place. When cited to appear before the authorities he gave back the will to Isabella and saw her destroy it. She was a weak-minded person, who required to be guided and managed. She and Margaret often declared their intention to leave him their money, but he always resisted such proposals. In a second declaration of 28th November he again denied that he had ever given to Isabella scrolls of any letters; but on being shown several such scrolls in his own handwriting, he admitted the fact. As to the joint will by the sisters in his favour, he said that he might have furnished a scroll of it at their request.
The case for the Crown being closed, certain evidence was given for the defence regarding the prisoner’s bank accounts, of which he kept two, from which it appeared that all payments were made in his own name and that there was on each a balance at his credit. A coal merchant and a builder gave evidence regarding a Feu Charter in Miss Darling’s favour, obtained on the prisoner’s instructions, of a piece of ground at Whitehouse Loan, Edinburgh, on which a villa was being built. On cross-examination it appeared that Isabella denied liability, and that the Doctor was held liable for the price: £720. An official of the Register House proved that Dr. Wielobycki bought his house, No. 55 Queen Street, at Whitsunday 1851, and that there was no incumbrance on the property; and an accountant, who had examined his books, said that the Doctor’s professional income for the year 1855 was over £1200. An Edinburgh merchant, a dweller in Leith Walk, a Hawick manufacturer, and the keeper of a temperance hotel, severally testified that to their knowledge the prisoner was a man of strict integrity and the highest honour, benevolent, and the reverse of mercenary; they had seen nothing to shake their confidence in him as an honest and upright person. This closed the case for the defence.
The Lord Advocate1 addressed the jury on behalf of the Crown. He began by referring to the peculiarities which the case presented: the position of the prisoner; the fact that the forged document could not be produced, because it had been destroyed; and the further fact that the hand which forged the writing was that of a person who, instead of being charged with the offence, appeared to give evidence against the prisoner. In secret crimes it often happened that an attempt to bring all the offenders to justice resulted in their escape, and it was in his lordship’s discretion to accept the evidence of a party who otherwise might have stood in the dock instead of in the witness-box. The evidence in this case was divisible into three parts: (1) the real or documentary evidence, about which there could be no doubt, including the judicial confessions of the prisoner; (2) the oral evidence, other than that of the accomplice; and (3) the evidence of the accomplice herself. The first was of the highest importance, apart from a single word spoken in the witness-box. The prisoner, a medical man in very large practice, involved himself in the pecuniary affairs of his patients, wrote out draft letters for them, conducted their negotiations, got their whole means into his hands and transferred them into bank in his own name. In the investment of their money he consulted no solicitor, they received no voucher for it, and his creditors could have swept off every penny. Their confidence in him was unbounded, nay, almost incredible. So completely was he master of their minds that they actually allowed him to take the savings of many years, accumulated in half-crowns and shillings, amounting to upwards of £300. There was also the very singular and startling fact that he held in his hands a document, purporting to be signed by Margaret and Isabella, making over to him at their death the whole of their property.
So that this medical attendant, not content with having received into his own hands the whole funds belonging to this family, not content with having them invested in his own name, took from these ladies a document constituting him their heir. That a man standing in his position should, without the intervention of a law agent, have permitted this to be done was a matter which required no comment; but that document being in his possession, the jury would see at once that not only was he the custodier of the funds, but that he had also the strongest possible interest in their ultimate destination.
Before Margaret Darling died the prisoner consulted Mr. Carter as to the effect of Thomas’s settlement, saying she would make a will if the money would not otherwise go to Isabella. So Dr. Wielobycki knew then that no will had been made. After her death, when he heard of Mr. Rutherford’s claim, he was in great agitation and wanted an opinion of counsel. It was plain that at that time no will could possibly have existed. The opinions, both unfavourable, were received on 3rd November; on the 4th Dr. Wielobycki came up from Portobello with the alleged will and the letter from Miss Darling. No one could believe that it had been written by herself. It contained words of legal import not used in her brother’s settlement; where did she get them? Among the documents found in the prisoner’s house was a will in his own handwriting, dated 4th November, in which the very same words were employed. This proved not only that Dr. Wielobycki had a form of will, but one that was verbatim that used by Miss Darling. They had heard what was the prisoners conduct when the will was repudiated by Mr. Rutherford: he at once negotiated for a settlement, recommended Miss Darling to pay, and when cited by the authorities to produce the will, took it to Portobello and saw Miss Darling destroy it. Were these the acts of an honest man? Without one word of oral evidence the forgery was proved. As to where the guilt really lay, let them remember the great interest Dr. Wielobycki had in the property, that he must have known the will was not made by Margaret, that he tried to pass off the forged deed as genuine, and the moment it was challenged, withdrew it, paid the claims, and saw it destroyed. With regard to the oral evidence, other than that of Miss Darling, his lordship referred to the conversation spoken to by Mr. Milroy as showing that the prisoner was investigating the subject. He then examined at large the evidence of Messrs. Rutherford, Carter, and Wight, emphasising the importance of the prisoner’s confession to the letter. Upon this branch of the case, as upon the former one, he was entitled to ask for a verdict of guilty. But the proof did not end there. The deed having been destroyed, it had appeared to his lordship that some further light must be thrown on the matter, and the only question was, should that light be obtained from Dr. Wielobycki or from Miss Darling? In the circumstances of the case—looking to the station of the prisoner and his means of influence, the fact of that influence having been used, the position in which the property stood, and his relation to Miss Darling in the event of her death—his lordship had no hesitation whatever in reaching a decision. If Dr. Wielobycki were guilty, it was one of the most flagrant cases of abuse of position, as well as breach of law, that had come under his notice as public prosecutor. He had accordingly placed Miss Darling in the box. No doubt her evidence was to be received with suspicion, but he would leave it to the jury to say whether, in view of the other evidence before them, they had the slightest hesitation in accepting her story as substantially true. If Dr. Wielobycki did try to dissuade her, his guilty knowledge was proved; when she gave him the will he must have known that it was forged. The whole chain of events so hung together as to lead them unquestionably to the conclusion that the prisoner was guilty of the charges made against him.
The Dean of Faculty1 then addressed the jury for the defence. The materials of which the Crown case was composed were, he maintained, extremely worthless. He could not sufficiently admire the skill with which the Lord Advocate strove to disguise the absolute necessity under which he felt himself in accepting the evidence of an accomplice. Such a course would never have been adopted had it been possible otherwise to establish the charge against the prisoner at the bar.
For thirteen years he had practised as a physician in Edinburgh, and had enjoyed an excellent and constantly increasing practice. He had made money, besides being in the receipt of a very good income; he had purchased the house in which he lived in Queen Street, and he had a comfortable balance at his bank account. He was distinguished among all who knew him as a person not only of undoubted probity and high honour, but as a man distinguished for benevolence on the one hand, and for the absence of any special love of money on the other. Such a man, as regarded personal character and position in life, was about the most unlikely man to engage in the commission of an offence such as he was now charged with.
It was said that he was interested in Miss Darling’s estate; but the whole amount to be gained by the crime was only £1200, which he hoped to receive on the death of a person not much older than himself, a sum equal to a single year’s income; and for this he had plunged all at once into this vortex of crime and guilt. It was incredible; but on what sort of testimony were they asked to believe it? There was real evidence of his acquaintance with the Darlings, who, having great confidence in him, entrusted him with the management of their affairs. Even if the jury thought his conduct in this regard improper, were they to conclude, because there was some suspicion of a forged will, that he must be the author of the fabrication or have any necessary connection with it? It was alleged that £3670 of the Darlings’ money found its way into his hands; but it was given him for investment, he had invested it, and every shilling of it was extant: £2000 lent in Glasgow, £1200 paid to Rutherford, £300 to bail out Miss Darling, making £3500, and leaving only £170 in Dr. Wielobycki’s hands, to meet which he had property of much greater value. What a commentary was this on Mr. Rutherford’s story that all the money had disappeared! It was all perfectly safe, and whether or not it was discreet of Dr. Wielobycki to invest it in his own name, there had been no deception. The Dean then referred to the rooted and strong enmity against the prisoner which characterised the conduct of Mr. Rutherford throughout. When he insisted on knowing how the money was to be invested, Dr. Wielobycki told him a cock-and-bull story about a “Scotch Duke,” because he was disgusted with Mr. Rutherford’s impertinence and was quizzing him most unmercifully. With regard to the alleged fabrication, it was strange that the prisoner should have set about forging a will before the unfavourable opinion had been received. He showed the will to Mr. Wight on the morning of 4th November, and that forenoon he had some conversation with Mr. Milroy, the suggestion being that he thus learned how to make the forged instrument. “Why, it was made already and in the hands of Mr. Wight, and if Miss Darling was to be believed, it had been in existence for days!” As to the resemblance between the will and Dr. Wielobycki’s settlement, what more natural than that, having it in his possession, supplemented by Milroy’s hints, he should use it as a model for his own? “It was said that Mr. Rutherford at once pronounced the document a forgery, but coming from the quarter from which it did, it would present itself to him in the most diabolical light; he [the Dean] would not have been surprised if Mr. Rutherford had expected the prisoner to commit murder, and he was not very sure if he had not thought something of that sort.” A great deal had been made of Dr. Wielobycki, when accused of being accessory to the forgery, not having denied it; but how could a Polish doctor know the meaning of the term accessory? Why, if he were guilty, did he not put the will in the fire, instead of giving it back to Miss Darling? He may have given it with some dark suspicion in his mind that something was wrong, but with a desire to let her do with it what she thought best for the purpose of screening herself. The Dean then examined the evidence of Messrs. Rutherford, Carter, and Wight, making the most of the discrepancies between their respective descriptions of the will.
All through, the jury would see a spirit of venom in Mr. Rutherford’s conduct; he rushed, in a wild-bull fashion, throughout the whole affair; stumbling himself, contradicted by everybody else at every stage of his proceedings, he was a witness entirely unworthy of credit. With his blundering rage on the one hand, and the indistinct recollection and most imperfect articulation of Mr. Wight, who could not give an intelligible account of any one thing that passed, on the other, he [the Dean] thought the jury would be disposed to give no weight at all to their evidence.1
If there were other evidence connecting the prisoner with the forgery, then such testimony might be appealed to as affording corroboration, but there was none. What faith could be placed in Miss Darling? The manner in which she expressed herself as to what she had done was revolting. Her statements were no more to be depended upon than if she had no conscience at all, and even in her falsehoods she was inconsistent. Miss Darling, therefore, stood condemned, and without her there was no evidence. That a man of respectable position in society and of the highest character, without need or poverty to drive him to the commission of an offence so grave, and with no adequate motive even as to the amount of money to be gained by it, should all at once, falling from his high estate of honour and integrity, commit one of the basest crimes, was more than any jury could believe. With this declaration of faith-fallacious, as we shall find in the sequel-the Dean, amid loud cheers from the audience, resumed his seat.
The Lord Justice-Clerk1 then charged the jury. If they should hold that the prisoner, even if he did not suggest the making of the will, yet concurred in the fabrication and furnished the scroll from which it was written, knowing that the signature of Margaret Darling was to be attached to it, that would amount to forgery. The crime, however, was incomplete unless the forged instrument was used and uttered, but if they were satisfied that the prisoner had produced to Messrs. Wight, Carter, and Rutherford this will as genuine, knowing it to be forged, then he was guilty of using and uttering. In view of the fact, which was not disputed, that he had acquired and possessed so complete an influence over these people that they gave into his hands all their money without even a receipt, it was plain that they were very ignorant, facile, and weak-minded persons. The foundation of the charge was that the will was actually forged; and if it was written by Miss Darling, of what avail to disprove that fact were minute criticisms on alleged contradictions between witnesses as to its outward form? It was an extraordinary thing that the will should be produced on 4th November just when it was required, and it was equally remarkable that so soon as it was challenged the whole purpose of it, namely, to secure Margaret’s share of the succession, was given up and the will was destroyed. Even without the testimony of Miss Darling, they could not but hold that it was a forgery. With regard to her evidence his lordship observed:—
She admitted having written the will, and said she had done so from a scroll furnished by Dr. Wielobycki. In a person of such extreme weak-mindedness, stupidity, and irresolution, capable, as the prisoner described, of saying yes or no to anything, there was often combined with that a cunning, narrow-minded, selfish desire to promote their own interests, however unscrupulously. This might account not only for her indistinct ideas of right and wrong, but for her absurd notions as to what was punishable and what was not, and might also account for her doing a thing which, if she had known she was liable to be punished for, she would not have done. But all this want of capacity and of moral discrimination did not prove that she was unworthy of credit when she spoke to actual facts that had occurred.
Having read over to the jury the evidence of Isabella and of Messrs. Wight, Rutherford, and Carter, his lordship said the first question was, were they satisfied as to the existence of this forged will? The learned counsel for the defence had not challenged the fact, and they might take it as established. The next point was, did the pannel aid and abet that fabrication? Even if they disbelieved Miss Darling’s statement that he supplied her with a scroll, such as he provided for all her other writings on matters of business, did he know it to be forged, and, so knowing, utter it? Was it possible that if he uttered it he believed it genuine? What was his conduct when it was challenged as a forgery? The prisoner had called evidence to prove that he had £600 in bank, owned a house in Queen Street, and earned a professional income of £1200 a year; that he was reputed an honourable, benevolent, and kind-hearted man. To all that they would give due weight. If, on the other hand, they were satisfied upon the proof that, from whatever motive, the prisoner was a party to the fabrication of the will, or that in uttering it he was in guilty knowledge of its being forged, then however unfortunate it might be for a person of such character and standing, no evidence of character could set aside facts proved to their satisfaction. Evidence of character was of great importance, but they all knew, and experience constantly taught them, that they must trust to proven facts as against all presumptions arising from previous good character.
His lordship having concluded his charge, the jury retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of twenty-five minutes returned to Court with the following finding: “The jury unanimously find the prisoner guilty as libelled, but recommend him to the mercy of the Court.”
LORD HANDYSIDE (who presided, the Justice-Clerk having left the Court)—Since you have recommended the prisoner to the mercy of the Court, it would be satisfactory to the Court to know the ground on which you make the recommendation.
THE CHANCELLOR (Foreman)—On the ground of his previous good character.
The verdict having been recorded, the diet was adjourned till Monday next at ten o’clock, when sentence would be pronounced. The Court then rose. The prisoner, we read, who seemed much exhausted by the protracted trial, received the announcement of the verdict with the same firmness and composure that had characterised his demeanour throughout the proceedings. There was evident sympathy with him in the crowded Court, but an adverse verdict was generally anticipated. A large crowd, unable to obtain access to the Courthouse, awaited the result of the trial in the Parliament Close.
At the sitting of the High Court on 12th January, the Lord Justice-Clerk and Lords Cowan and Deas upon the Bench, when the diet was called against Dr. Wielobycki the Justice-Clerk stated that in consequence of Lord Handyside not having been able to make up his mind as to the punishment to be inflicted, the Court would continue the diet against the pannel till Wednesday following.1 On that day the Lord Justice-Clerk, having resumed the facts of the case, observed:
The matter of punishment has been the subject of very anxious consideration to the Court. The gravity of the case, the great importance of the punishment in point of precedent and for the end of deterring others from the commission of such crimes, and—I won’t disguise it—the commiseration arising in my mind at the moment of conviction for the situation in which the pannel was then placed, as compared with the description of his former position in society, and the faint hope on my own part that, in the opinion of the rest of our brethren, we might find some kind of encouragement for making an exception from the ordinary line of punishment in these cases, induced us to consider the case with the aid of the whole other members of the College of Justice. We found them all decidedly and firmly of opinion that the course of practice and the character of the offence could lead to but one result, and after full consideration I am satisfied that it is the fitting and proper conclusion. Therefore, Dr. Wielobycki, the sentence of the Court is, that you be transported beyond the seas for fourteen years.1
The prisoner was then removed from the bar.
The animadversions of the Dean of Faculty upon the character and conduct of Mr. Rutherford aroused strong resentment in the Border country, where that gentleman was held, personally and professionally, in high esteem. Both the Border Advertiser and the Kelso Chronicle protested against what they considered a flagrant abuse of the licence allowed to counsel, and demanded a public apology, but none was vouchsafed. It appears that the Dean’s strictures had incurred a reprimand from the Bench, but neither of the reports of the charge which I have consulted contains any reference to the matter. It seems unfair that the reporters, having recorded the Dean’s diatribe, should have omitted the judicial reproof; but John Inglis was a much bigger man than John Hope, and perhaps they were afraid to do so. At a dinner of the Selkirkshire Farmers’ Club, Major Scott of Gala, in proposing Mr. Rutherford’s health, spoke loudly in his vindication and waxed exceeding wroth with the Dean of Faculty. Mr. Rutherford, in responding, said that though he had been hardly used, the wounds inflicted by his learned censor were but skin deep, and he was none the worse for them.2
Despite the doom pronounced against him by the unanimous judgment of the Lords of Justiciary, the Polish physician was not destined to “dree his weird” to the extent prescribed. By the courtesy of H.M. Prison Commissioners for Scotland and England respectively, I am enabled to acquaint the interested reader with the several stations of his punitory pilgrimage. Dr. Wielobycki, apprehended on 28th November 1856, registered as forty-two years of age and as a member of the Church of England, was, as we have seen, sentenced on 14th January 1857. On 16th February of that year, by order of the Secretary of State, he was transferred to Wakefield prison.1 On 16th December the convict was removed to Lewes prison, where he remained until 13th July 1859, when he was sent to Dartmoor. On 2nd February 1862 he received a full pardon.2 There is nothing in the prison records to indicate the grounds upon which the pardon was granted; perhaps the Home Secretary, less Rhadamanthine than the Lords of Justiciary, thought five years’ penal servitude was in the circumstances of the case a sufficient punishment.
How the Knight of the Golden Cross (Virtuti Militari) employed his recovered leisure during the nine years which elapsed until he again became in 1871 a citizen of Edinburgh, I cannot tell. Only two items of his post-penal history survive: he married, according to the inscription on his tombstone, Lady Felice, Baroness Wielobycka; he died, as his obituary notice informs us, at No. 3 George Square, Edinburgh, on 16th November 1882, at the age of sixty-nine, and in the bosom of the Catholic Church.3
Whatever good may have been done by Dionysius Wielobycki in the flesh is interred with his bones in the Grange Cemetery; the evil that he did lives after him, as I have occasion to know, in legend. On asking the other day a venerable lady of my acquaintance in Edinburgh whether she recollected Dr. Wielobycki, she replied that she remembered him perfectly as a dweller in George Square; also his noble helpmate: “a tall, handsome, fair-haired woman.” And then my friend added the, to me, novel and surprising statement: “He was hanged for poisoning his wife”! Seeing that the Baroness Wielobycka survived to have a Requiem Mass celebrated in the Pro-Cathedral, Broughton Street, for the repose of her husband’s soul,1 to erect over his remains a marble monument, and to mourn his loss for a season in the connubial mansion,2 it would seem that my informant’s memory is upon this point defective. Wherefore, being a conscientious historian, I am compelled reluctantly to reject as apocryphal this so dramatic conclusion, which much better “ fills the bill,” as I of old conceived it, than the simple and insanguinary truth. Verily, there is wisdom in the familiar proverb relative to the consequences of giving a dog a bad name.
Footnotes
1 The full text of the inscription is as follows: “In Memory of / Dionysius Wielobycki, M.D. / Bom in / Byten, Volhynia, Poland / in 1813 / Died in Edinburgh / 16th November 1882 / Erected by / Lady Felice / Baroness Wielobycka.”
1 No separate account of the case, so far as I am aware, was ever published. For the facts, as narrated, I have relied on the reports of the trial in the contemporary press: Scotsman, 10th January 1857; Edinburgh Evening Courant, 9th and 10th January 1857; and the official record in Irvine’s Justiciary Reports, ii. 579-583,1858.
1 Communicated by Professor Harvey Littlejohn.
1 One would fain have hoped that the Doctor had been called in to consult with his ingenious colleague Dr. Pritchard; but, alas, that notable physician did not commence practice in Glasgow until 1860. The fact that he was a homeopathist need have been no obstacle, as Dr. Pritchard would have met Beelzebub in consultation if money were to be made by doing so, and Dr. Wielobycki was not, as we shall find, unduly scrupulous where cash was concerned.
1 Scotsman, 3rd December 1856.
2 A similar dilemma beset the public prosecutor in the historic case of Burke and Hare; but in that instance Lord Advocate Rae was forced by the circumstances to proceed against the less guilty couple—if there be degrees in blackness—who refused to turn King's evidence against the baser pair.
1 Donald Mackenzie (1818-1875), afterwards Lord Mackenzie; Advocate-Depute, 1854-58, 1859-61; Sheriff of Fife, 1861; Bench, 1870.
1 This posthumous endorsement forms a curious instance of automatic writing from “beyond the veil.”
1 James Moncreiff (1811-1895). Bar, 1833; Solicitor-General, 1850-51; Lord Advocate, 1851-52, 1852-58, 1859-1866, 1868-69; Dean of Faculty, 1858-1869; Lord Justice-Clerk, 1869-1888.
1 John Inglis (1810-1891). Bar, 1835; Solicitor-General, Lord Advocate, and Dean of Faculty, 1852; Lord Justice-Clerk, 1858; Lord Justice-General and Lord President, 1867-91.
1 From this passage it is plain that the learned Dean was familiar with the maxim current in the law courts of our English neighbours: “No case; abuse the plaintiff’s attorney.”
1 The Right Hon. John Hope (1794-1858). Bar, 1816; Solicitor-General 1823-30; Dean of Faculty, 1830-41; Lord Justice-Clerk, 1841-58.
1 Courant, 13th January 1857.
1 Courant, 15th January 1857. It is said that Lord Handyside, having known the doctor personally, was naturally unwilling to pronounce sentence on his former friend.
2 Scotsman, 17th January 1857.
1 There was at that date no provision made in Scotland for the accommodation of convicts undergoing a sentence of penal servitude.
2 Communicated by Dr. James Devon, H.M. Prison Commissioner for Scotland.
3 Scotsman, 17th November 1882.
1 Scotsman, 17th November 1882.
2 Edinburgh Directory for 1883.