Wed 27 Nov 2013
Reviewed by William F. Deeck: JAMES CORBETT – Gallows Wait.
Posted by Steve under Reviews[5] Comments
William F. Deeck
JAMES CORBETT – Gallows Wait. Herbert Jenkins, UK, hardcover, 1947. No US edition.
Detective-Inspector Cranston has recently finished testifying at the trial of a man accused of murdering his girlfriend. Cranston has told the court that the woman was strangled and that there were no fingerprints on the body. He deduces that the murderer used gloves. Not a great deduction, or a good deduction, or even a quick deduction, but it’s the most sensible deduction he makes in this novel.
Of course, later on he says the murderer had strangled the girl … with his bare hands,” but neither Corbett nor his characters let blatant contradictions bother them.
As the judge in the trial is about to place upon his head the black cloth and pass sentence, he dies, having apparently ingested poison a few minutes before. Luckily, at !east in the author’s view, Cranston is still in the courtroom, for no particular reason but then many things happen in Corbett’s novels for no particular reason.
Cranston investigates and finds a blackmail letter, unopened, in the judge’s overcoat pocket. With the letter is a miniature dagger. Since he finds another miniature dagger in the judge’s chambers, Cranston deduces that there was a previous letter. Good thinking? Well, the letter Cranston discovers refers to a previous letter, so perhaps Cranston was cheating a bit.
This is not one of Corbett’s wonderfully awful novels, bad as it is, but it does have some of the patented Corbett touches. For example, Cranston lights a cigarette with a match and stands twisting the spent match. Then he puts his lighter back in his pocket.
Cranston suspects one man may be the major villain. There’s no reason for this except the man is the only character who could be the bad guy. Cranston arranges for his sergeant to interview an old lady who may have some information about a hit-and-run victim and makes sure that the suspected villain is aware of this forthcoming questioning.
Cranston’s theory is that the villain will waylay the sergeant, and he, Cranston, will come “in the good old nick of time” and effect a rescue. Not having Cranston’s devious mind, the villain and his henchmen simply kidnap the woman.
One more example of Corbett’s thrillers that don’t but that do amuse, albeit unintentionally.
Editorial Note: Previous Corbett thrillers reviewed by Bill on this blog are Vampires of the Skies and Murder While You Wait. (Follow the links also for much more commentary on Corbett.)
November 27th, 2013 at 1:58 pm
I’ve never read a mystery by James Corbett, but I’m confident enough in Bill Deeck’s judgments to be convinced that they are as enjoyably bad as he said they are.
But what I’d like to know, from someone who HAS read some of Corbett’s work, is whether the “bad” so outweighs the “enjoyable” as to discourage some enterprising publisher from reprinting them.
November 27th, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Though I attempted to read Corbett before and failed (see my comment on the page for Bill’s review of VAMPIRE OF THE SKIES) I gave him another try. I finally read my first James Corbett mystery from start to finish this year — THE MONSTER OF DAGENHAM HALL. Everything Bill has written about this guy is 100% correct. MONSTER… was utterly stupid. I don’t know if I’ll ever waste my time with any of the other Corbett titles (one of them GALLOWS WAITS!) I’ve amassed over the years. Even Carolyn Wells has more to offer me in the realm of “alternative mysteries”.
November 27th, 2013 at 3:17 pm
In terms of someone reprinting Corbett, John, I’m going to take your comment as a resounding No.
November 27th, 2013 at 7:40 pm
“Wonderfully awful” is the best way to describe Corbett”s books — though the “wonderful” is too often missing.
November 28th, 2013 at 7:34 am
I hope everyone here has and has read THE COMPLETE DEECK ON CORBETT, a classic of the first (and worst) order. Bill was a great guy, and he is sorely missed by those of us who knew him.