empty, Sir Horace having sent the servants away to his country house in
Dellmere a week before. But if the murderer was a burglar he had stolen
nothing and had not even collected any articles for removal. The only
thing that was known to be missing was the dead man's pocket-book, but
there was nothing to prove that the murderer had stolen it. It was quite
possible that it had been lost or mislaid by Sir Horace; it was even
possible that it had been stolen from him in the train during his journey
from Scotland.

It might be that while prowling through the rooms after breaking into the
house, and before he had collected any goods for removal, the burglar had
come unexpectedly on Sir Horace, and after shooting him had fled from the
house. Only as a last resort to prevent capture did burglars commit
murder. Had Sir Horace been shot while attempting to seize the intruder?
The position in which the body was found did not support that theory. Two
shots had been fired, the first of which had missed its victim, and
entered the wall of the library. Evidently the murdered man had been hit
by the second while attempting to leave the room. It was ingeniously
suggested by the _Daily Record_ that the murderer was a criminal who
knew Sir Horace, and was known to him as a man who had been before him at
Old Bailey. This would account for Sir Horace being ruthlessly shot down
without having made any attempt to seize the intruder. The burglar would
have felt on seeing Sir Horace in the room that he was identified, and
that the only way of escaping ultimate arrest by the police was to kill
the man who could put the police on his track. Mr. Justice Fewbanks had
had the reputation of being a somewhat severe judge, and it was possible
that some of the criminals who had been sentenced by him at Old Bailey
entertained a grudge against him.

The question of when the murder was committed was regarded as important.