rning the parties to this affair, and this is what they have
brought to light:

"Hurst, as you know, is a stockbroker--a man of good position and
reputation; but, about ten years ago, he seems to have committed an
indiscretion, to put it mildly, which nearly got him into rather
serious difficulties. He appears to have speculated rather heavily and
considerably beyond his means, for when a sudden spasm of the markets
upset his calculations, it turned out that he had been employing his
clients' capital and securities. For a time it looked as if there was
going to be serious trouble; then, quite unexpectedly, he managed to
raise the necessary amount in some way and settle all claims. Whence
he got the money has never been discovered to this day, which is a
curious circumstance, seeing that the deficiency was rather over five
thousand pounds; but the important fact is that he did get it and that
he paid up all that he owed. So that he was only a potential
defaulter, so to speak; and discreditable as the affair undoubtedly
was, it does not seem to have any direct bearing on this present case."

"No," Jervis agreed, "though it makes one consider his position with
more attention than one would otherwise."

"Undoubtedly," said Thorndyke. "A reckless gambler is a man whose
conduct cannot be relied on. He is subject to vicissitudes of fortune
which may force him into other kinds of wrong-doing. Many an
embezzlement has been preceded by an unlucky plunge on the turf."

"Assuming the responsibility for this disappearance to lie between
Hurst and--and the Bellinghams," said I, with an uncomfortable gulp as
I mentioned the names of my friends, "to which side does the balance of
probability incline?"

"To the side of Hurst, I should say, without doubt," replied Thorndyke.
"The case stands thus--on the facts presented to us: Hurst appears to
have had no motive for killing the deceased (as we will call him); but
the man was seen to enter the house, was never seen to leave it, and
was never again seen alive. Bellingham, on the other hand, had a
motive, as he had believed himself to be the principal beneficiary
under the will. But the deceased was not seen at his house, and there
is no evidence that he went to the house or to the neighborhood,
excepting the scarab that was found there. But the evidence of the
scarab is vitiated by the fact that Hurst was present when it was
picked up, and that it was found on a spot over wh