The De la Haye Murder Case, or the Madras Murder Case as it came to be known, is perhaps the most notable and Spectacular criminal case ever tried in the High Court of Bombay.  It has several most unusual features.  The murder had taken place in Madras; and Bombay had nothing whatever to do with the crime.  Ordinarily, the person accused of the crime should have been tried in Madras and not in Bombay.  It was tried in Bombay, because by an order of the Government of India, it was transferred from Madras to the Bombay High Court under section 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code.  The reason for this extraordinary step was that the murder was of such an atrocious character that it had shocked all Madras.  All sorts of rumours were afloat; and the local atmosphere was so charged with excitement and prejudice, that it would be difficult to find a jury who would take an impartial and dispassionate view of the case; and the accused person would have hardly any chance of getting a fair trial.  Luckily for the accused, Lord Willingdon was the Governor of Madras at the time; and there is no doubt that it was at his instance that the Government of India were moved to transfer the case from Madras to Bombay.
 
    The murdered man, Mr. De la Haye, was the principal of Newington House in Madras, a school for boys in the charge of the Court of Wards, Madras.  He was done to death in the dark hours of the night of 15-16 October 1919, apparently by one or more of the students.  According to the prosecution evidence, it was a deliberate, preplanned, cold-blooded and merciless midnight murder of a man, while he was fast asleep in his bed in the school premises.  If it had not the primal curse upon it, the curse of Cain, it had a worse curse upon it; namely, the curse of Macbeth-Macbeth, who murdered sleep "the innocent sleep".  It had also the curse of Iago upon it, the curse of a motiveless malignity pursuing its victim even unto death.   No adequate motive for such a terrible crime was alleged or proved in the case.  All that was suggested by the prosecution was that there was some ill feeling between the principal and Kadambur, the accused; that on one occasion he had referred to the boys in the school as "barbarous Tamilians" or "Tamil barbarians"; and the preposterous suggestion of the prosecution was that this stray remark, which was probably made in jest, rankled for several months in the mind of the accused; so that he entered into a diabolical plot with the other boys to murder his master and preceptor.
 
    After the case was transferred to Bombay, it was in due course committed for trial in the First Criminal Sessions of the High Court of Bombay for the year 1920, along with several other criminal cases.  Sir Norman Macleod was the Chief Justice at the time; and an unusual arrangement for this sessions was made.  Mr. Justice Crump presided over all the other cases committed for trial in this sessions.  The Chief Justice reserved this one case for himself, with the result that this sessions was presided over by two judges in succession.   Mr. Justice Crump was unquestionably a most capable and conscientious judge, with great experience of criminal trials.  The Chief Justice, however, thought fit to reserve this sensational and spectacular case for himself.
 
    Another very exceptional feature of the trial was, that the Chief Justice added to the glamour and dramatic aspect of the trial by coming into Court in gorgeous judicial pomp.  He came into the court in full court dress full-bottomed wig, red gown, knee-breeches, silk stockings, and pump shoes a most imposing embodiment of criminal justice in all its awful majesty.  When the trial opened, Sydney Smith, the Public Prosecutor of Madras, led by W. L. Weldon of the Bombay Bar, appeared for the prosecution.  The defence was in the hands of R. D. N. Wadia, Bar-at-law, a well-known and experienced criminal lawyer in those days, with Dr. Swaminathan and Ethiraj of the Madras Bar.   J. D. Davar, Bar-at-law, another well-known criminal lawyer of Bombay, watched the proceedings on behalf of the principal witness of the prosecution, the approver in the case.   A special jury was empanelled; the accused pleaded not guilty, and the trial proceeded.
 
    The principal witness for the prosecution was another student of the Newington House named Singampatti, who, on all accounts, was the richest of the wards in the school-they all being sons of well-to-do zamindars in Madras.   The story of the prosecution was that on the fatal night of 15th of October 1919, some of the boys were sitting and talking in the main hall of the school on the ground floor, which was used as a billiards room.   The accused Kadambur said, "We must finish the Dorai (principal) tonight. "Mr. and Mrs. De la Haye returned to the school between 8-30 and 9 p.m.  Mr. De la Haye greeted the boys in the hall, bade them good night and went upstairs to his bed-room.  There were two beds on the verandah of the first floor just over the porch of the building.  Under the porch was the hard carriage drive of the school compound.  Mr. and Mrs. De la Haye went to bed after a time, Mr. De la Haye sleeping in one bed and his wife sleeping in the other bed alongside, on the verandah.  De la Haye soon feel fast asleep.  About 30 minutes past midnight, someone entered the bedroom, approached the bed on which De la Haye was sleeping, and shot him dead with a 12-bore gun.  De la Haye died instantaneously, having been hit by the bullet on the right side of his head.  As the judge pointed out in his admirable charge to the Jury, this was unquestionably a case of murder, there being no suggestion or possibility of accident or suicide.  Mrs. De la Haye was aroused by the report of the gun and so were several boys.  One of the boys came down and finding what had happened, immediately telephoned to the police and the Civil Surgeon, Major Hingston.  Major Hingston arrived in about 10 minutes, examined Mr. De la Haye and found him dead.  Mrs. De la Haye was naturally in a hysterical state of mind.  The Police came, inquiries were made; and it was found that another gun was lying on the carriage-drive below with a few cartridges placed around it.   Suspicion fell on Singampatti, and the accused Kadambur.
 
    After a preliminary inquiry, Singampatti was made an approver, and it was his story that implicated Kadambur in this murder.  On his own admission, Singampatti was there at the time on the scene of the murder.  His case was that he was an unwilling spectator, dragged against his will by Kadambur to go along with him on threat of being shot himself.  According to his evidence, Kadambur told him "you must go with me".  Kadambur forced him also to take a gun; and told him that if he (Kadambur) fired and missed, Singampatti should shoot the Dorai with his gun.  According to this witness, the accused was in a most murderous mood at the time, and ordered Singampatti among other things, that if before he finished the Dorai, Mrs. De la Haye woke up, she should be shot dead; if any of the boys came, they too should also be shot.  Kadambur then approached one of the beds, and on being satisfied that it was De la Haye who was sleeping thereon, he shot him in the head.  Then both of them ran away from the scene of the murder, throwing down one of the guns out of the window on the carriage drive below.  Several other boys of the school besides Singampatti gave evidence.  According to that evidence, there was a conspiracy among some of the boys to murder the Dorai.
 
    The conspiracy was not a secret plot between Kadambur and Singampatti, but it was discussed in the presence and in the hearing of several other boys.  As the judge pointed out to the jury, the standard of truthfulness among the boys of the school was not very high.  One of the principal witnesses for the prosecution, a boy named Thalvankotte, was described by the other boys as the "Champion liar of the school", which, as the judge said, implied that there were other liars in the school, and there was a competition among them for lying.  The evidence for the prosecution was most unsatisfactory.  Apart from the general improbability of the story, there were so many contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the different witnesses, elicited in cross-examination, that it was difficult to accept the story as a whole.  Singampatti being an approver and an accomplice, his evidence was of course tainted and suspect from the beginning.   The learned judge was certainly not impressed favourably with any of the prosecution witnesses, except one boy named Saptur, who of all the witnesses made a good impression on the judge and the jury; and he did not depose to any conspiracy and did not in any way implicate the prisoner.
 
    On this state of evidence, after counsel for the Crown and the accused had addressed the jury, the judge gave a very lucid summary of the evidence in his charge.   He compared the prosecution evidence to a jig-saw puzzle, which consists of several wooden pieces with bits of a picture painted upon them.  The puzzle consists in fitting all the pieces together so as to produce a complete picture.  If a single piece is missing, or does not fit into the picture, or even. if, as the Chief Justice pointed out, any essential piece requires to be forced down into the pattern, the picture must remain incomplete and unsatisfactory.  It was for the prosecution to present a clear and complete picture of the crime with which they were charging the accused.  If such a picture is not presented, complete and perfect in every essential respect, the charge must fail.  The summing-up was decidedly in favour of the accused; and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the nature of the evidence and the character of the witnesses, the judge was perfectly right in stressing all the discrepancies, and leaving the jury with an impression that it would be unsafe to convict a man of murder on such evidence.  The jury retired and after considering their verdict for some time, returned with a unanimous verdict of not guilty.  When the verdict was announced, it was received with applause by the whole court which was crowded with spectators; Lady Macleod, who was in the audience, being the first to clap her hands.  The Chief Justice accepted the verdict and Kadambur was acquitted.
 
    Thus ended this memorable trial.  The accused owed his acquittal to three factors: Lord Willingdon's wisdom in transferring the case from Madras to Bombay.  In view of the state of public feeling and the general atmosphere prevailing in Madras as a result of the murder, it is extremely doubtful that the accused, if tried in Madras, would have got a fair trial and a right verdict at the hands of an impartial and dispassionate jury.  Secondly, large holes were made in the prosecution evidence by the very able and effective cross-examination of the prisoners' counsel, R. D. N. Wadia.  He brought out so many contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the different witnesses, that the evidence as a whole was made out to be thoroughly unreliable.  Lastly, the accused owed his acquittal to the extremely fair, lucid and impartial summing-up of the Chief Justice, emphasizing the risk of relying on evidence of this nature in a capital case. Apart from his charge to the jury, which was decidedly in favour of the accused, Sir Norman Macleod contributed directly and materially in making out that the evidence of the chief prosecution witness Singampatti was false-at least in one important particular.  It was at his instance that an expert in fire-arms from a well-known firm of gunsmiths in Bombay was called, to examine the guns alleged to have been used in committing the murder.  Singampatti's evidence was to the effect that, after the unfortunate man was shot dead, one of the guns and a handful of cartridges were thrown out from the upper storey on to the carriage-drive below.  The evidence of the expert proved conclusively that the gun produced in court as having been found on the carriage-drive showed no marks whatsoever of having been thrown out upon a hard surface from a height of 40 to 50 feet.  The gun appeared to be intact.  It had hardly any dents or even scratches upon it.  According to the expert, if the gun had been thrown out from a height of 40 to 50 feet on a hard surface, it would have been broken to pieces.  Further, if the cartridges which were found near the gun had also been thrown from an upper storey, they would not be found all together by the side of the gun.  They would have scattered helter-skelter all over the compound.
 
    Apart from the approver, who stood self-condemned as an accomplice, this atrocious midnight murder was never brought home to any person.  It is now 40 years since the case was tried; but the Madras murder has remained an unsolved mystery.  The most amazing part of the case was that no adequate motive for such a preplanned and cold-blooded murder, in a more or less desperate fashion, was even suggested by the prosecution.  The suggested motive, that the boys proceeded to enter into a diabolical plot to murder their headmaster, just because he had made a stray remark calling some of them "barbarous Tamilians" or "Tamil barbarians" a long time ago, was puerile in the extreme.  It appears from the judge's summing-up that the investigation of the police was also not very satisfactory.  It would seem as if some other person, who had a powerful motive to get rid of Mr. De la Haye, was at the bottom of the crime; and the boys, at least Singampatti, were tools in his hand.  He was never traced; and so this case goes into the annals of crime as an unsolved murder mystery.
 
    Incidentally, the Newington House, in view of the ugly disclosures made in the evidence, far from being a well-regulated educational institution, appeared to be a den of juvenile vice, in which the boys learnt hardly anything useful, and the whole atmosphere of the establishment was unfavourable to sound, wholesome and enlightened education.  It was soon after closed down.
 

 
    Among the other mammoth cases of the High Court was the case of Raja Bahadur Shivlal Motlal.  This case is gigantic not so much on account of the length of time which the main suit took for trial, but for its numerous ramifications and interim proceedings.  For a season, almost every day witnessed some application in connection with this case a Motion, a Chamber Summons, a Summons for Directions, and so on.  The multiplicity of the proceedings did not matter; for, the estate was inexhaustible, as also the ingenuity and avarice of the lawyers.  The litigation involved the estate of a multi-millionaire which was, at the then value of the Rupee, valued at Rs. 10 crores; so that money was no consideration to anybody.  As in the preceding Aga Khan case, voluminous evidence on custom of the caste had also been taken on commission at various places in India; and there were proceedings in Hyderabad which was the native place of the Raja Bahadur. In all these interim proceedings before the High Court, by consent of parties, the order for costs was not the usual order, "costs costs in the cause ", but costs out of the estate.  By this happy arrangement the costs did not conspicuously accumulate and pile up, so as to draw the wonder and envy of other people.  The suit was ultimately settled when the parties had their fill of litigation, and the lawyers of their profits and perquisites.