Under the terms of Joyce's father's will, she must live with her aunt Mrs Evelyn Fenton at The Cedars until she is 25, otherwise her inheritance will go to her aunt. It is a strained relationship to say the least since Mrs Fenton is vindictive and spiteful towards her niece, going so far as to blame her for her heart troubles, perhaps hoping to drive Joyce out of the house and so receive her inheritance. It would be welcome indeed given Mrs Fenton is addicted to betting. Dr Simon Hyndford, an intimate friend who often visits her, also likes to bet but neither is very successful at it. However, Simon shares a house with his brother Richard, who after years spent in Japan returned a rich man and is generous with loans to him.
Mrs Fenton is found dead in her home and the jury returns a verdict of wilful murder by a person or persons unknown.
Enter Superintendent Ross with a mixed bag of suspects. Was the culprit Mrs Fenton's husband John, who left her and the town after they separated? He wishes to marry his mistress but his wife refuses to divorce him. Now the couple are free to marry and since the Fentons are childless the money he settled on his departed wife when they wed will be returned to him. Furthermore, he was seen back in town not long before Mrs Fenton was murdered.
Then there's Joyce. Her aunt's death frees her from domestic tyranny and she will be able to claim her inheritance. She tells her fiance Leslie Mrs Fenton's treatment has brought her to the end of her tether so might the young couple have collaborated in a deadly plot? What about Mr Wachet, who manages properties Mrs Fenton owned? She intends to consult her solicitor unless he immediately pays her the rents collected on her behalf. If the culprit was Mr Wachet, Mrs Fenton's death would certainly be convenient.
My verdict: Superintendent Ross untangles a case that comes to include graphology, the puzzle of The Cedars' locked French window, IOUs worth thousands of pounds, a tumbler of a certain design, missing betting books, financial shenanigans, an overheard conversation suggesting plans for murder, and the dynamics of the Hyndford family. His summing up of evidence for the prosecution, including providing the names of those who will be able to confirm his reasoning, is a welcome feature in explaining a complicated case.
My verdict: Readers may deduce at least part of the solution but the full explanation of the affair is shocking and completely blindsided me. I award it an A, with a rueful smile at missing what was so obvious in hindsight.
