What do you think?
Rate this book
Dr. Priestley #23
Death at Breakfast
A classic winter’s crime novel by one of the most highly regarded exponents of the genre.
Victor Harleston awoke with uncharacteristic optimism. Today he would be rich at last. Half an hour later, he gulped down his breakfast coffee and pitched to the floor, gasping and twitching. When the doctor arrived, he recognised instantly that it was a fatal case of poisoning and called in Scotland Yard.
Despite an almost complete absence of clues, the circumstances were so suspicious that Inspector Hanslet soon referred the evidence to his friend and mentor, Dr Lancelot Priestley, whose deductions revealed a diabolically ingenious murder that would require equally fiendish ingenuity to solve.
Victor Harleston awoke with uncharacteristic optimism. Today he would be rich at last. Half an hour later, he gulped down his breakfast coffee and pitched to the floor, gasping and twitching. When the doctor arrived, he recognised instantly that it was a fatal case of poisoning and called in Scotland Yard.
Despite an almost complete absence of clues, the circumstances were so suspicious that Inspector Hanslet soon referred the evidence to his friend and mentor, Dr Lancelot Priestley, whose deductions revealed a diabolically ingenious murder that would require equally fiendish ingenuity to solve.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1936
24 people are currently reading
172 people want to read
About the author
John Rhode
143 books31 followersAKA Miles Burton, Cecil Waye, Cecil J.C. Street, I.O., F.O.O..
Cecil John Charles Street, MC, OBE, (1884 - January 1965), known as CJC Street and John Street, began his military career as an artillery officer in the British army. During the course of World War I, he became a propagandist for MI7, in which role he held the rank of Major. After the armistice, he alternated between Dublin and London during the Irish War of Independence as Information Officer for Dublin Castle, working closely with Lionel Curtis. He later earned his living as a prolific writer of detective novels.
He produced two long series of novels; one under the name of John Rhode featuring the forensic scientist Dr Priestley, and another under the name of Miles Burton featuring the investigator Desmond Merrion. Under the name Cecil Waye, Street produced four novels: The Figure of Eight; The End of the Chase; The Prime Minister's Pencil; and Murder at Monk's Barn. The Dr. Priestley novels were among the first after Sherlock Holmes to feature scientific detection of crime, such as analysing the mud on a suspect's shoes. Desmond Merrion is an amateur detective who works with Scotland Yard's Inspector Arnold.
Critic and author Julian Symons places this author as a prominent member of the "Humdrum" school of detective fiction. "Most of them came late to writing fiction, and few had much talent for it. They had some skill in constructing puzzles, nothing more, and ironically they fulfilled much better than S. S. Van Dine his dictum that the detective story properly belonged in the category of riddles or crossword puzzles. Most of the Humdrums were British, and among the best known of them were Major John Street.
-Wikipedia
Cecil John Charles Street, MC, OBE, (1884 - January 1965), known as CJC Street and John Street, began his military career as an artillery officer in the British army. During the course of World War I, he became a propagandist for MI7, in which role he held the rank of Major. After the armistice, he alternated between Dublin and London during the Irish War of Independence as Information Officer for Dublin Castle, working closely with Lionel Curtis. He later earned his living as a prolific writer of detective novels.
He produced two long series of novels; one under the name of John Rhode featuring the forensic scientist Dr Priestley, and another under the name of Miles Burton featuring the investigator Desmond Merrion. Under the name Cecil Waye, Street produced four novels: The Figure of Eight; The End of the Chase; The Prime Minister's Pencil; and Murder at Monk's Barn. The Dr. Priestley novels were among the first after Sherlock Holmes to feature scientific detection of crime, such as analysing the mud on a suspect's shoes. Desmond Merrion is an amateur detective who works with Scotland Yard's Inspector Arnold.
Critic and author Julian Symons places this author as a prominent member of the "Humdrum" school of detective fiction. "Most of them came late to writing fiction, and few had much talent for it. They had some skill in constructing puzzles, nothing more, and ironically they fulfilled much better than S. S. Van Dine his dictum that the detective story properly belonged in the category of riddles or crossword puzzles. Most of the Humdrums were British, and among the best known of them were Major John Street.
-Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
June 14, 2022
Got hooked in pretty quick with this and just kept going. A puzzler mystery and one that had so many unexpected situations and discoveries that it certainly kept one engaged and detecting along. I enjoyed the various detective crew here: Hanslet, Inspector Jimmie (who really was more of the brains on the police side) Dr. Priestly (who is the listens and thinks) and Dr. Oldland who arrived at the scene as the victim lay dying.
The victim is a creep, that is for certain as you start the story. However it is just the beginning of a string of surprises and unexpected situations. I feel the Dr. Priestly figures out a bit of what may be going on quite sooner than Hanslet and Jimmie; however, if the murderer is to be stopped it will need evidence. So the policemen continue to follow the threads, and evidence. I'm very fond of these kind of mysteries where there is a puzzle, characters feel real, the detectives are human but also determined as well- and you get to try and figure out with them who is the guilty party.
Luckily I have other books by this author to start on.
The victim is a creep, that is for certain as you start the story. However it is just the beginning of a string of surprises and unexpected situations. I feel the Dr. Priestly figures out a bit of what may be going on quite sooner than Hanslet and Jimmie; however, if the murderer is to be stopped it will need evidence. So the policemen continue to follow the threads, and evidence. I'm very fond of these kind of mysteries where there is a puzzle, characters feel real, the detectives are human but also determined as well- and you get to try and figure out with them who is the guilty party.
Luckily I have other books by this author to start on.
July 6, 2018
Published by Collins The Crime Club Feb 1936 - this is one of four books that John Rhodes/Miles Burton (alias Cecil John Charles Street) wrote in that year. I will type out the book taster from the original book at the bottom of this review. I have read quite a few of the Rhode/Burton titles and find that he has a very varied consistency in regards to quality. He specialises in the whodunit crime genre and generally plays fair with his audience (no holding back of evidence found) and many of his books revolve around the themes of clever scientific devices, rural scenes with a focus on the local boozer, and Agatha Christie like devices such as disguise. However if you are looking for a substitute for Christie you will be disappointed - as although Rhode/Burton writes an easy flowing prose - he doesn't have the wit and dexterity that Christie has in her denouements or her entertainment value.
This novel like most of Rhode's novels uses a clever plot - and is investigated by Detective Superintendent Hanslet (taking the minor role) and Inspector Jimmy Waghorn (Oxford educated and trained at the New Hendon Police College - taking the main role) with back up guidance by the nelly-know-all Professor/Dr. Priestley (almost taking a Cameo Role - appearing shortly just 3-4 times) - all three are reoccurring characters throughout many of Rhode's books. The book to any well seasoned reader of classic crime is about average - we see Hanslet making rookie mistakes that you wouldn't expect him to make e.g. not checking bank note numbers - as well as breaking and entering without a warrant - Waghorn also makes the same sorts of errors (checking coats and hats) and letting his emotions/sex drive blind him from making a fair assessment of a female suspect - while Priestley tries to steer both of them towards the correct solution by getting them to think about what they haven't yet asked themselves but without telling them plainly what the answer will be. Most whodunit enthusiasts will be able to guess the murderer at least 100 pages before the end of the novel (however Hanslet & Waghorn are still struggling right up until the end) this lessens the readers appreciation of the book tremendously. This novel was most definitely rushed (without too much thought) as we see most of the middle part of the book taken up with a French criminal case from the 1850s and Jimmy's recap of the case so far - in a somewhat boring manner and which is clearly not needed except by the author in order to fulfil his word count. Rhodes can write better novels than this for example - Tragedy on the Line (1931) & The Motor Rally Mystery (1933). It is certainly not a rememberable Rhode whodunit. I would give this book 5 out of 10.
Book taster:
At eight o'clock in the morning, breakfast was set in the dining-room of 8 Matfield Street, the home of Victor Harlaston and his sister Janet. But no sooner had Victor Harlaston sipped his coffee than his agonised expression and spasmodic twitching conveyed all too clearly that he had been poisoned. When Dr. Oldland arrived, he saw that the case was hopeless--and called the Yard. Even although, at this early stage, the death of Victor Harlaston was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it was impossible to guess at the extreme ingenuity with which the criminal had carried out his dastardly plan. Once again, however, Dr. Priestley shines in the solving of an extraordinary mystery.
This novel like most of Rhode's novels uses a clever plot - and is investigated by Detective Superintendent Hanslet (taking the minor role) and Inspector Jimmy Waghorn (Oxford educated and trained at the New Hendon Police College - taking the main role) with back up guidance by the nelly-know-all Professor/Dr. Priestley (almost taking a Cameo Role - appearing shortly just 3-4 times) - all three are reoccurring characters throughout many of Rhode's books. The book to any well seasoned reader of classic crime is about average - we see Hanslet making rookie mistakes that you wouldn't expect him to make e.g. not checking bank note numbers - as well as breaking and entering without a warrant - Waghorn also makes the same sorts of errors (checking coats and hats) and letting his emotions/sex drive blind him from making a fair assessment of a female suspect - while Priestley tries to steer both of them towards the correct solution by getting them to think about what they haven't yet asked themselves but without telling them plainly what the answer will be. Most whodunit enthusiasts will be able to guess the murderer at least 100 pages before the end of the novel (however Hanslet & Waghorn are still struggling right up until the end) this lessens the readers appreciation of the book tremendously. This novel was most definitely rushed (without too much thought) as we see most of the middle part of the book taken up with a French criminal case from the 1850s and Jimmy's recap of the case so far - in a somewhat boring manner and which is clearly not needed except by the author in order to fulfil his word count. Rhodes can write better novels than this for example - Tragedy on the Line (1931) & The Motor Rally Mystery (1933). It is certainly not a rememberable Rhode whodunit. I would give this book 5 out of 10.
Book taster:
At eight o'clock in the morning, breakfast was set in the dining-room of 8 Matfield Street, the home of Victor Harlaston and his sister Janet. But no sooner had Victor Harlaston sipped his coffee than his agonised expression and spasmodic twitching conveyed all too clearly that he had been poisoned. When Dr. Oldland arrived, he saw that the case was hopeless--and called the Yard. Even although, at this early stage, the death of Victor Harlaston was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it was impossible to guess at the extreme ingenuity with which the criminal had carried out his dastardly plan. Once again, however, Dr. Priestley shines in the solving of an extraordinary mystery.
April 17, 2024
It is certainly entertaining, but some of the solutions were quite obvious from the start. Also, the Superintendent of Scotland Yard is so egregiously obtuse that it is just unbelievable.
October 23, 2025
3.5* rounded down. another golden age mystery - it's my favorite genre, I'm forever in search of a great one- this one was good and kept my interest but did get tedious at times.
January 7, 2026
Victor Harleston dies from a nicotine poisoned razor blade in this 1936 whodunit. The ingenious murder method promises much, but the investigation quickly becomes frustrating, with Superintendent Hanslet being so spectacularly obtuse that he makes Inspector Clouseau from Pink Panther look competent. The culprit is obvious way before the end, yet our so-called heroes spend another 50-80 pages ignoring Dr Priestley's cryptic hints and privately rehashing theories like some confused goldfish. All in all, a clever plot sabotaged by detectives who couldn't find water if they fell out of a boat into the sea.
My Rating - 3/5
My Rating - 3/5
October 16, 2023
decent but predictable.
June 19, 2019
Perfect mystery book to read while traveling.
May 29, 2019
I am sorry to say that I found this rather dull. It was one of five books by Street/Rhode/Burton/Waye published in 1936, of which "Death in the Tunnel" is the best.
Superintendent Hanslet is quite provokingly stupid and Inspector Jimmy Waghorn somewhat slow for a promising Hendon graduate. Dr Priestley is as irritating as ever.
The solution was fairly obvious from early on and I felt tempted to skip large chunks of rather laborious explanation of untenable theories.
Superintendent Hanslet is quite provokingly stupid and Inspector Jimmy Waghorn somewhat slow for a promising Hendon graduate. Dr Priestley is as irritating as ever.
The solution was fairly obvious from early on and I felt tempted to skip large chunks of rather laborious explanation of untenable theories.
June 14, 2019
I have long been a fan of classic mystery writers such as Dorothy L Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, Margery Allingham and Agatha Christie, so when this book caught my eye on the crime shelves during my annual 'Christmas book token spending spree', I decided to take a chance on it, partly due to the cover art and partly because of a review by Dorothy L Sayers on the back.
Unfortunately the lead characters in this book didn't grab me in the same way his counterparts' did. It's a very neat puzzle, well laid out, but it wasn't terribly exciting or gripping. Apparently back in the 30s they didn't bother getting lowly DCs or even DSs to do their investigative work, they went straight for Inspectors and Superintendents (was the 30s equivalent of the graduate entry scheme one that put you straight in at a fairly high level rather than starting you at the bottom?) It must have been nice not to have any other cases either of the two lead policemen had to work on!
I suspect that if I had maybe picked up the characters from the very first book they appeared in, I might have understood more and had more invested in them, but as a stand alone book I just got the impression that the Superintendent was incredibly stubborn about appointing blame, even in the face of contradictory evidence (how did he ever rise so far behaving like that?!), while the Inspector was rather brighter, although more naive. As for Dr Priestly, I got the feeling that he was a bit like Sherlock Holmes, except instead of investigating things himself, he got the police to do it and bring him the answers. His sole purpose appeared to be for the police to bounce ideas off him, but to then totally ignore his advice.
I think this will probably be the last John Rhode book I read - if you don't want any personal connection to the leads, this is probably the crime book for you, but I actually like to know more of their quirks and habits, maybe the female writers of the time were the only ones allowed to indulge in such writing!
Unfortunately the lead characters in this book didn't grab me in the same way his counterparts' did. It's a very neat puzzle, well laid out, but it wasn't terribly exciting or gripping. Apparently back in the 30s they didn't bother getting lowly DCs or even DSs to do their investigative work, they went straight for Inspectors and Superintendents (was the 30s equivalent of the graduate entry scheme one that put you straight in at a fairly high level rather than starting you at the bottom?) It must have been nice not to have any other cases either of the two lead policemen had to work on!
I suspect that if I had maybe picked up the characters from the very first book they appeared in, I might have understood more and had more invested in them, but as a stand alone book I just got the impression that the Superintendent was incredibly stubborn about appointing blame, even in the face of contradictory evidence (how did he ever rise so far behaving like that?!), while the Inspector was rather brighter, although more naive. As for Dr Priestly, I got the feeling that he was a bit like Sherlock Holmes, except instead of investigating things himself, he got the police to do it and bring him the answers. His sole purpose appeared to be for the police to bounce ideas off him, but to then totally ignore his advice.
I think this will probably be the last John Rhode book I read - if you don't want any personal connection to the leads, this is probably the crime book for you, but I actually like to know more of their quirks and habits, maybe the female writers of the time were the only ones allowed to indulge in such writing!
December 15, 2023
Slightly different writing style and presentation from what I usually read.
After being woken with his first pot of tea of the day, Victor Harleston gets out of bed, washes, shaves, dresses and appears downstairs for breakfast. Moments later, his half-sister Janet is calling for help, as her brother is dying on the hall floor. The police are called in and an investigation starts. There are sufficient clues pointing to the dead man's half-sister Janet and her brother Philip. The two detectives pursue their lines of enquiry, but achieve nothing. As time goes by, the investigation encompasses more police forces as the clues lead the London men far and wide. They discuss the case with a former colleague, who points them in the right direction.
There are several crimes running in tandem with the murder case, all of which confuse the investigators. Eventually, with a lot of help from various people, the detectives solve the crimes.
After being woken with his first pot of tea of the day, Victor Harleston gets out of bed, washes, shaves, dresses and appears downstairs for breakfast. Moments later, his half-sister Janet is calling for help, as her brother is dying on the hall floor. The police are called in and an investigation starts. There are sufficient clues pointing to the dead man's half-sister Janet and her brother Philip. The two detectives pursue their lines of enquiry, but achieve nothing. As time goes by, the investigation encompasses more police forces as the clues lead the London men far and wide. They discuss the case with a former colleague, who points them in the right direction.
There are several crimes running in tandem with the murder case, all of which confuse the investigators. Eventually, with a lot of help from various people, the detectives solve the crimes.
December 1, 2020
Possibly the enjoyable John Rhode book I've read to date. A very, very clever but complicated plot involving Victor Harleston, notorious miser who has just come in to money only to die due to nicotine poisoning at breakfast. Superintendent Hanslet and Jimmy Waghorn are brought in to investigate the case only to stall after finding nothing to tie Harleston's relatives in to the case. Moving on to a new case the two detectives are brought back when nicotine poisoning is at the centre of this mystery. Psychologist Dr Priestley appears only sparingly, acting as a puppet master pointing the two detectives in the direction that might help them. The book is almost jigsaw like only coming together when all the pieces are placed together. A joy to read if you like me like this type of novel.
August 19, 2018
I bought this book partly because I was attracted to its cover and partly because I like old crime stories.
I really enjoyed the begging - we are introduced to Victor Harleston who woke up happy as he is expecting a large sum of money to be soon received. He comes down to eat his breakfast and few minutes later he is dead. His half sister runs for doctor who founds traces of nicotine in his tea. Doctor calls for inspector Hanslet.. and the plot begins. Who killed Victor? Why? What is so unusual about an accountant clerk?
I really enjoyed that book. I like crime stories and this book was no disappointment. Very fast and easy read. I surely want to read more books by this author.
I really enjoyed the begging - we are introduced to Victor Harleston who woke up happy as he is expecting a large sum of money to be soon received. He comes down to eat his breakfast and few minutes later he is dead. His half sister runs for doctor who founds traces of nicotine in his tea. Doctor calls for inspector Hanslet.. and the plot begins. Who killed Victor? Why? What is so unusual about an accountant clerk?
I really enjoyed that book. I like crime stories and this book was no disappointment. Very fast and easy read. I surely want to read more books by this author.
November 10, 2025
Mysery at Olympia was better. This was SO procedural: pages and pages and pages of hypotheses about the crime, and re-reviews of the evidence. Wearying. The justice team is not at all fleshed out as characters; it is just pursuit of the bad guy. Even the bad guys are not fleshed out
And the ultimate solution is more convoluted than the birth of the universe.
But you'll learn a little about growing fruit trees
And the ultimate solution is more convoluted than the birth of the universe.
But you'll learn a little about growing fruit trees
November 11, 2018
This has got to be the slowest, most predictable cozy mystery I have ever read. But actually it suited me fine this time because I listened to it during the 2018 midterms and I needed something slow and gentle. And Gordon Griffin is now in my top 5 narrators. This story is probably unbearable but he is truly outstanding and so it was a good antidote to some crazy times.
November 1, 2020
Unbelievably this book was published in 1936 in Great Britain, and it holds up well considering the science of forensics was in its early stages. The plot centers around the death of an unlikeable guy who collapses and dies at breakfast. The originality of the murder itself carries the book well, but it does
perhaps overdo the thorough explanations of the detectives work.
perhaps overdo the thorough explanations of the detectives work.
August 28, 2022
One too many twist undid the knot . The last twist made no sense at all...why would anyone create a second ID and destroy it before it has completed its purpose . The book had started well and was going well before the french Counts story weighed it down.The second part is also good but the third murder undid all the good work .
June 16, 2024
I'm sure I must have read something by John Rhode before, at least he has contributions in some anthologies of classic crime I have read. But I had totally blanked on him until I read this very solidly constructed mystery from the Golden Age of crime fiction. Plenty of red herrings, but also enough clues to point the alert reader (that's me!) towards the correct solution.
February 20, 2021
Als Hörbuch gehört.
Knappe drei Sterne, der Fall an sich ist ganz interessant, aber das Buch ist entschieden zu lang, die Details, insbesondere die Denkprozesse des Ermittlers, werden ausgewalzt bis zum geht nicht mehr.
Knappe drei Sterne, der Fall an sich ist ganz interessant, aber das Buch ist entschieden zu lang, die Details, insbesondere die Denkprozesse des Ermittlers, werden ausgewalzt bis zum geht nicht mehr.
May 18, 2025
just good all round classic British who dun it. the references and point of view are typical for the time. like women to be in the kitchen. but aside that just well thought out book. good characters , clever story and good pacing. love it
July 10, 2025
Mystery was interesting, especially how the two murders related.
The "Jimmy sequence" with the Count/Countess story analogy was Tedious.
Dr. Priestley's long-winded exposition about halfway through was More than Tedious.
The "Jimmy sequence" with the Count/Countess story analogy was Tedious.
Dr. Priestley's long-winded exposition about halfway through was More than Tedious.
September 12, 2018
Read the first two chapters and then skip and read the last chapter and you get the best reading experience for this book.
December 28, 2019
An interesting puzzle but once it becomes obvious who did it, the author takes too long to explain things. The book is about the puzzle not the characters.
March 27, 2023
I hate it when i guess the culprit before the detective
July 1, 2024
A clever plot slightly spoiled by the obtuseness of inspector Hanslet. The book is entertaining but lacks the wit of some of the authors contemporaries.
October 6, 2025
Very enjoyable
Pure mystery without any aspects of being a thriller as I strongly dislike suspense or any sense of being a thriller.
Pure mystery without any aspects of being a thriller as I strongly dislike suspense or any sense of being a thriller.
January 1, 2015
A quick read, but even so about halfway through I started to get bogged down in too many threads, too many details, too many characters. Dragging in the "historical case" took up far too much space and didn't add much but confusion. I understand about red herrings, but my goodness, we didn't need a barrelful in this short book, which is what we got--and how they stink!
The entire last quarter of the book was "reveal" and explanation (telling not showing) and by the time I got through it, I was done indeed.Who's who, what's what, and for goodness' sake, WHY? Why would a person carry around deadly poison in a tin? And everybody merrily handles this tin with no precaution (not even a mention of gloves!), opens and sniffs it, etc etc. I know those oldfashioned tins, the tops are notoriously hard to get off--are you going to risk splashing nicotine oil hither and yon? And then it's hard to get the top back on properly. Oh yeah, you're so gonna carry a deadly contact poison everywhere you go. And the business with the cologne bottle was just gratuitously silly. The bit about blood groups was interesting for the modern reader, seeing how far we've come since this book came out. No CSI here! There were four (numbered) bloodgroups, and little else to go by.
My first Dr Priestley, but I see it's 23 in a series. I'm used to cosy 20s fiction presenting the cops as inept bumblers, but this one takes the biscuit. The young inspector has to be diplomatic in reining in his boss, whose mind is made up before he's found a quarter of the evidence. Dr P. comes in for a few cameo discussions over gents' dins parties, where he basically sits and purses up his mouth and says "Oh, really? You think so, do you?" in the tone of one who holds all the cards.
I can see why Rhode disappeared from the cozy scene so quickly, in spite of so many books, if this one is an indication of his output.
The entire last quarter of the book was "reveal" and explanation (telling not showing) and by the time I got through it, I was done indeed.Who's who, what's what, and for goodness' sake, WHY? Why would a person carry around deadly poison in a tin? And everybody merrily handles this tin with no precaution (not even a mention of gloves!), opens and sniffs it, etc etc. I know those oldfashioned tins, the tops are notoriously hard to get off--are you going to risk splashing nicotine oil hither and yon? And then it's hard to get the top back on properly. Oh yeah, you're so gonna carry a deadly contact poison everywhere you go. And the business with the cologne bottle was just gratuitously silly. The bit about blood groups was interesting for the modern reader, seeing how far we've come since this book came out. No CSI here! There were four (numbered) bloodgroups, and little else to go by.
My first Dr Priestley, but I see it's 23 in a series. I'm used to cosy 20s fiction presenting the cops as inept bumblers, but this one takes the biscuit. The young inspector has to be diplomatic in reining in his boss, whose mind is made up before he's found a quarter of the evidence. Dr P. comes in for a few cameo discussions over gents' dins parties, where he basically sits and purses up his mouth and says "Oh, really? You think so, do you?" in the tone of one who holds all the cards.
I can see why Rhode disappeared from the cozy scene so quickly, in spite of so many books, if this one is an indication of his output.
May 19, 2024
Visit JetBlackDragonfly (The Man Who Read Too Much) at www.edenthompson.ca/blog
Death At Breakfast is another odd mystery from John Rhode, written in 1936.
Listed on the cover as "A Doctor Priestley Detective Story", he once again plays third wheel to the actual stars Junior Inspector Jimmy Waghorn and Inspector Hanslet. At times they visit Priestley for his astute advice, but I've yet to hear what qualifies him.
The strange events begin with Victor Harleston falling dead at breakfast from poisoning. He had shaved that morning with a tainted razor blade soaked in deadly nicotine, the day he was to receive a tremendous fortune. His meek sister informs the police, his estranged brother comes up to London from his fruit farm down south. For Jimmy and Hanslet the clues just don't add up. But never mind that, the story quickly shifts miles away to the coastal town of Torquay, where Victor's boss at the brokerage firm has disappeared in the night. Foul play and perhaps murder is presumed when they find bloody bedsheets and torn pyjamas. It seems the friends he was visiting have plenty of reasons to kill, and someone was seen carrying a heavy case down to sea in the stormy night. Somehow these two crimes will intersect before the end of page 312.
The similarity with other Rhodes titles I've read was Priestley playing a minor part in the investigation, leaving Jimmy doing the leg work. It's a 'police procedural', meaning they slowly piece the case together through interviews and clues - and if you aren't paying attention, the progress is repeated again and again as Jimmy reiterates the case to Hanslet, then Hanslet repeats it Priestley, and Priestley corroborates it to both of them (sometimes within the same meeting!). At first intriguing, by the end it was doing my head in. There are only so many times we need to go over it. Still, it was quite ingenious (with a wealth of plausible red herrings) and it held my interest, if only as a curio of 1930's mysteries.
Death At Breakfast is another odd mystery from John Rhode, written in 1936.
Listed on the cover as "A Doctor Priestley Detective Story", he once again plays third wheel to the actual stars Junior Inspector Jimmy Waghorn and Inspector Hanslet. At times they visit Priestley for his astute advice, but I've yet to hear what qualifies him.
The strange events begin with Victor Harleston falling dead at breakfast from poisoning. He had shaved that morning with a tainted razor blade soaked in deadly nicotine, the day he was to receive a tremendous fortune. His meek sister informs the police, his estranged brother comes up to London from his fruit farm down south. For Jimmy and Hanslet the clues just don't add up. But never mind that, the story quickly shifts miles away to the coastal town of Torquay, where Victor's boss at the brokerage firm has disappeared in the night. Foul play and perhaps murder is presumed when they find bloody bedsheets and torn pyjamas. It seems the friends he was visiting have plenty of reasons to kill, and someone was seen carrying a heavy case down to sea in the stormy night. Somehow these two crimes will intersect before the end of page 312.
The similarity with other Rhodes titles I've read was Priestley playing a minor part in the investigation, leaving Jimmy doing the leg work. It's a 'police procedural', meaning they slowly piece the case together through interviews and clues - and if you aren't paying attention, the progress is repeated again and again as Jimmy reiterates the case to Hanslet, then Hanslet repeats it Priestley, and Priestley corroborates it to both of them (sometimes within the same meeting!). At first intriguing, by the end it was doing my head in. There are only so many times we need to go over it. Still, it was quite ingenious (with a wealth of plausible red herrings) and it held my interest, if only as a curio of 1930's mysteries.
August 7, 2023
One from the Golden Age. A tangled mystery fairly presented for the reader to solve, a well-paced story with interesting charactersisation. For once I managed to deduce the answer to the mysteries (but that could be because I've been binge-reading this author's works this month) but that definitely didn't detract from the story.
June 2, 2015
This little mystery kept me guessing right to the end. A man is murdered. Who did it? How? A second man vanishes and is presumed murdered. While investigating that crime the police discover even more confusing facts. Who is committing such crimes and how will the police lay their hands upon them?
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews