'No, sir.'
'The servants?'
'No, sir,' I said sighing, 'The daughter. But I must tell you, I have absolutely no proof to support that suspicion. I don't know where she could have obtained the arsenic. I don't know what her motive might possibly have been.'
'Do you think her mentally unbalanced?'
'No, sir, I do not. Mr Teitelbaum, it might help if you could explain to me what happens legally in this case. I mean, what happens to the assets of the missing man?'
It was his turn to sigh. He entwined his leathery fingers, looked down on his clasped hands on the desktop as if they were a ten-legged animal, a kind of lizard perhaps, that had nothing to do with him.
'Mr Bumble said that the law is an ass,' he said. 'I might amend that to say that the law is usually half-ass.'
A lawyer's joke, I laughed dutifully.
'The laws concerning the estate of a missing person are somewhat involved,' he continued sharply. 'Common law, as approved by the Supreme Court in 1878 in the case of Davie versus Briggs, establishes a presumption of death after seven years. However, the Stonehouse case must be adjudicated under the statutes of New York State, of which there are two applying to this particular situation.'
I stifled a groan and settled a little deeper into my armchair. I was in for a lecture, when all I had wanted was a 245
one-sentence answer.
'The Estates, Powers and Trusts Law allows a presumption of death after five years of continuous absence, providing — and this is one of the reasons I requested you make a thorough investigation — providing that the missing person was exposed to a specific peril of death and that a diligent search was made prior to application that declaration of presumed death be issued by the court. At that point, after five years, assuming the two conditions I have just stated have been observed, the missing person may be presumed dead and his will submitted to probate. But if, subsequent to those five years, he suddenly appears, he may legally claim his estate. Thus, "diligent search" is of paramount importance in the presumption of his death.
Are you following me, Mr Bigg?'
'Yes, sir,' I said. 'I think so.'
'On the other hand,' Mr Teitelbaum said with great satisfaction, and I realized that, to a lawyer, 'On the other hand' contains as much emotional impact as 'I love you'
would to a layman.
'On the other hand,' he continued, 'the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act, dealing with the administration of the estates of missing persons, provides that not until ten years after the date of disappearance does the missing person lose all interest in his property. The estate is then distributed to his heirs by will or the laws of intestacy. This is simply a statute of limitations on the time in which a missing person may claim his estate. After those ten years, he is, to all intents and purposes, legally dead, although he may still be alive. If he shows up in person after those ten years, he owns nothing.'
'And during those ten years, sir? Can his dependants draw on his assets?'
'A temporary administrator, appointed by the court, preserves the assets of the estate, pays the required taxes, supports the missing person's family, and so forth. But
once again, a diligent search must be made to locate the missing person.'
'Now I am confused, sir,' I said. 'Apparently, under the first law you mentioned, a missing person can be declared dead after five years. Under the second law, it requires ten years before the estate can be divided amongst his heirs.'
'A nice point,' Mr Teitelbaum said. 'And one that has occasioned some heated debate amongst our younger attorneys and clerks to whom I assigned the problem. My personal opinion is that the two statutes are not necessarily contradictory. For instance, in the second case, under the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act, during the ten-year administration of the estate, the administrator or any interested person may petition for probate of the will by presenting sufficient proof of death. I would judge,' he added dryly, 'that the finding of the body would constitute sufficient proof.'
'Uh, well, sir,' I said, trying to digest all this, 'what is going to happen to the Stonehouse family, exactly?'
'I would say,' he intoned in his most judicial tones,
'after reviewing the options available, that they would be wise to file for relief under the SCPA and accept in good spirit the appointment of a temporary administrator of Professor Stonehouse's estate. That is the course I intend to urge upon Mrs Stonehouse. However, in all honesty, Mr Bigg, I must confess that I have not been moving expeditiously in this matter. Mrs Stonehouse and the children, while hardly individually wealthy, have sufficient assets of their own to carry them awhile without fear of serious privation. Their apartment, for instance, is a co-operative, fully paid for, with a relatively modest maintenance charge. I have, in a sense, been dragging my feet on an application for appointment of a temporary administrator until we can prove to the court that a diligent search for Professor Stonehouse has indeed been made. Also, I am quite disturbed by what you have told me of the attempted 247
poisoning. I would like to see that matter cleared up before a court application is made. I would not care to see an allowance paid to a family member who might have been, ah, criminally involved in the Professor's disappearance.'
'No, sir,' I said. 'I wouldn't either. Another point: supposing that an administrator is appointed for a period of ten years and nothing is heard from Professor Stonehouse during that time. Then his will goes to probate?'
'That is correct.'
'And if no will can be found?'
'Then the division of his estate would be governed by the laws of intestacy.'
'Could he disinherit his wife? If he left a will, I mean?'
'Doubtful. Disinheriting one's spouse is not considered in the public interest. However, he might disinherit his wife with a clear reason provable in a court of law.'
'Like trying to poison him?'
'That might be sufficient reason for disinheritance,' he acknowledged cautiously. 'Providing incontrovertible proof was furnished.'
'The same holds true for his son and daughter, I presume?'
Mr Ignatz Teitelbaum took a deep breath.
'Mr Bigg,' he said, 'the laws of inheritance are not inviolable. Even an expertly drawn will is not a sacred document. Anyone can sue, and usually does. Ask any attorney. These matters are usually settled by compromise, give-and-take. Litigation frequently results. When it does, out-of-court settlements are common,'
'May I pose a hypothetical question, sir?'
'You may,' he said magisterially.
'Suppose a spouse or child attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm upon the head of the family. The head of the family has proof of the attempt and disinherits the spouse or child in a holographic will that includes proof of the attempt upon his life. The head of the family disappears.
But the will is never found. At the end of ten years, or earlier if the body is discovered, the estate is then divided under the laws of intestacy. The guilty person would then inherit his or her share?'
'Of course,' he said promptly. 'If the will was never found, and proof of the wrongdoing was never found.'
'If the body was discovered tomorrow, sir, how long would it take to probate the will?'
'Perhaps a year,' he said. 'Perhaps longer if no will existed.'
Then he was silent. He unlatched his fingers, spread his brown hands out on the desktop. His head was lowered, but his bright eyes looked up at me sharply.
'You think the body will be discovered tomorrow, Mr Bigg?' he asked.
'I think it will be discovered soon, sir,' I said. 'I don't believe whoever did this has the patience to wait ten years.'
'You're assuming a second will was drawn,' he said.
'Perhaps the head of the family never got around to it.