time that she had ordered the arsenic and that of this powdered gum she herself drank repeatedly, and that she gave it to Lafarge. The direct charge was, that while pretending to' give him gum she gave him the poison. The proof of this, if we strip it of all that is irrelevant, is exceedingly uncertain, confused, and weak; but the mode in which the Avocát-Général sought to prove it-the mode which the French law permitted him to adopt-well deserves the serious attention of every one who desires to make the law a protector of the innocent. Of some of the methods employed to arouse the suspicion of the jury, we have already spoken. But not content with the history of the unfortunate girl's marriagewith the story of her disappointment, her quarrel with her husband-with the strange tale of the cake sent to Paris-not content with all these irrelevant means of exciting a prejudice against her, he allowed the wildest stories to be related about her the fancies that entered into the heads of her 'neighbours, the conjectures of gossiping crones, the malicious insinuations of guilty and unworthy servants-are adduced as grave and important pieces of evidence, that ought to weigh with rational men when called upon to discharge the awful duty of deciding upon the life or death of a fellow-creature. As specimens of this mode of proceeding, and for the purpose of continuing our comparison, we will mention two instances of evidence adduced of the sort we are here describing.

One of the witnesses examined was a M. Aimé Sirey, who came forward voluntarily to disclose to the court an important fact; and he was allowed, after being sworn, to proceed after the following manner. In reply to the question of the Judge What have you to say? M. Sirey answers,

A fact which, up to the present moment, has appeared either indifferent or to confirm the guilt of the accused, now seems to me, in the presence of the new events of the trial, to be singularly modified, and to acquire such gravity as to make it imperative on my conscience to reveal it to the jury and to the court.' (Mouvement d'attention, says the reporter.) I was at Objet during the first days of December, when I received a visit from my bailiff, who manages my estate at Comborn, near to Glandier. He breakfasted with me; and the conversation falling upon the prosperity that was likely to

happen in the affairs of M. Lafarge, as well through his invention as by means of the fortune he had acquired by his marriage, my bailiff spoke the following words, which I repeat verbatim,' (At this stage of this idle story, in an English court M. Sirey would by judge, counsel, jury, have been commanded to hold his peace, and depart about his business. To the rule of evidence which would have led to this summary dismissal of such an impertinent intruder we shall immediately advert; at present, we proceed with the testimony as received by the French court.) M. Lafarge will not profit by these advantages, for he will be poisoned by his wife.» (General marks of surprise.). I did not attach much importance to these words; but the remarkable coincidence of this poisoning, foretold eight or ten days before, with the death of M. Lafarge, which fulfilled the prophecy, appears to me now, in presence of the facts which have been disclosed before the court, so important as to arrest the attention of justice, and to require that the bailiff should be examined. '

The Judge-Are you quite sure as to the date of this cont ⚫versation? Answer-Yes, sir. What day did M. Lafarge die? It was the 14th. But what was the day of the week? The Judge-after having ascertained-it was Tuesday. M. Sirey-Well, then, it was Sunday the 5th that my bailiff 'said this. The Judge, after some further enquiry as to the date of the conversation, asked whether it was deemed necessary to hear the bailiff; and the Counsel for the prisoner insisting that it was, he was ordered to attend. One curious observation respecting the report of the bailiff was made by M. Sirey- It appeared that he (the bailiff) related these stories (ces bruits) as emanating from the relations of La'farge.' That is, they determined beforehand to accuse his wife of murder, and (if imputations are to be permitted) they laid their plans so as to give their predetermined accusation an air of truth. This evidence was given on the 4th of September, and not till the 12th was the bailiff found; and then his version of the affair was, that he was talking one day 'with a M. Lafaurie about the arrival of Mme. Lafarge at 'Glandier, who said she was very rich, but that she and her 'husband were not happy together. That a letter had been 'written by her to Lafarge, in which she declared she loved ' another man also called Charles, but that he was not Charles

6

Lafarge; and that then M. Lafaurie said, if he were in the

, place of Lafarge he would let her go, for fear she should 'do him some ill turn. »’

By the law of England, hearsay evidence is not admissible, and no conversation can be given in evidence that has not taken place in the hearing of the prisoner. M. Sirey and his bailiff would therefore have been alike excluded; the minds of the jury would not have been distracted by an accumulation of idle-nonsense; or subject to the improper influence of vague and unsupported reports. Once open the door to this sort of gossip, and no man would be safe-reputation, property, life, would often depend upon a rumour which malice. might designedly invent, and a foolish, busy curiosity circulate and improve-conjecture would be converted into proof, and the whisper of every doting crone would usurp the office, or outweigh the influence of evidence given by percipient witnesses under the sanction of an oath.

Another instance of the mode in which it was sought to prejudice the unfortunate accused, in the minds of the jury, by the aid of this species of evidence, was remarkably exemplified by the testimony given by the clerk Denis. Grave suspicion rested upon this man that, if the deceased did come to his death by poison, he was the person really guilty; and yet, with all the suspicion that throughout the proceedings rested upon him, he was allowed to begin his story with this statement :

- On the 8th of January, Madame Marie Lafarge having learned that I was going to Lubersac, had me called into her apartment. When I came, she made me go out into the garden, and there commanded me to bring her some arsenic, some black puddings, and sausages. I bought the puddings and the sausages, but I did not think it proper to buy the arsenic. On the 9th I bought some for twenty sous, at the shop of M. Lafosse. On the 11th, as I was going to Tulle, on the business of M. Lafarge, I received a note from Madame Marie Lafarge, by her maid-servant. She told me in this note (') to buy at Tulle some black puddings, sausages, some arsenic,

(') This note was not produced, nor asked for. By our practice, the witness would not have been permitted to speak of its contents, until some account had been given of the note itself. Was it in existence? If yes, then produce it, or hold your tongue as to its contents. If destroyed, explain how, when, why all which explanations would have cast doubt upon the testimony.

and a mouse-trap. Fearing lest Madanie might be angry, I said to my wife-llere he would have been stopped by an English judge, because about to relate a conversation that occurred out of the hearing of the prisoner)-1 suppose I must get this arsenic, since I have been told twice to get it. I again said to my wife, I very much fear lest this arsenic may be made to serve to procure the death of M. Lafarge. I said that, because Madame Charles had said before M. Magneaux, that, if she wished it, her husband would not be alive in twenty-four hours. She had said also, she should only wear mourning a year, as they did at Paris, if her husband happened to die.

n

Another violation of our rules of evidence was permitted in this witness, as in all the others. No witness is allowed to give in evidence any thing beyond what he saw done, or heard said, in those cases in which he is a allowed to report conversations. His own thoughts upon the occasion of which he is speaking, he is not permitted to disclose. Denis said, that ́although he had bought the arsenic at Brives, yet he did not give it to Madame Lafarge." He is then asked by the Judge, why he did not give it? This question, by our rules, would not be permitted; the answer given by Denis will at once show why. Because,' he says, M. Lafarge was ill, and I feared the use that might be made of this arsenic. Upon this the Judge remarked, These fears are very grave;" what 'circumstances created them in you?' 'Because Madame La'farge had said to M. Magneaux, the day before she wrote the note, that if she wished, her husband would not be alive four-and-twenty hours, and that she always had arsenic by her (sur elle.) Did you hear those words from the mouth of Madame Lafarge?' No; M. Magneaux heard them, and told them to me. It is remarkable that Magneaux, a clerk of Lafarge, when called, does not appear to disprove or confirm the assertions of Denis.

་

Now, although such were the many and extraordinary means to excite suspicion by irrelevant evidence, the direct evidence as to the fact of poisoning, is absolutely almost nothing. During the illness of Lafarge, the suspicions of his mother were aroused by Denis: she readily listened to the suggestion, and saw in every act of her daughter-in-law, whom she feared and hated, an attempt to murder her son. When asked by

her daughter-in-law to retire to rest, she immediatiately concluded that the object in view was to get out of her superintendence. If any thing was given to her son by his wife, and, as is the common result in such a malady, it was returned from the stomach, she leaped to the conclusion that poison was the cause. At length, in her alarm, she communicated her suspicions to her unfortunate son; and thus, without doing or being able to do any good thereby, she heightened every terror, every horror that could gather around the dying man. But with all her suspicions excited-with the whole household well aware of her belief-the only facts adduced in evidence which fairly tell against the prisoner are, first, that she ordered the poison to be bought; and next, that some poison was asserted to have been found in a small box which she had in her pocket; and which, she said, contained powdered gum-and also in a packet said to have been found in her bureau; and out of which, as well as out of the box, she had been supposed to take a portion of the contents, and put it into some chicken broth given by her to her husband. These last facts were elicited from the testimony of two yonng women, Le Brun and Emma Ponthieuthe first violently the enemy; the second the friend of the accused.

Le Brun tells the following story-On the 11th of January, Lafarge heard that his wife was taking some chicken broth, and desired that some of it might be brought to him. It had, however, heen all drunk by his wife, and a fresh quantity was prepared-his wife saying, that they must allow him to believe it to be hers. This broth, made by the sister of Lafarge, was left on the chimney piece, in some warm water, in the room of the wife, in which also was Mademoiselle Le Brun both of them being in bed. Le Brun says, that when they were left alone, she saw Madame Lafarge put her arms out of bed, reach the broth from the chimney, and put into it a white powder, and stir it with her finger-that she did not see whence she got the powder, but only perceived that it was in a piece of torn paper (). That she, upon (1) In summing up the evidence, the Avocat-Général stated, with great, with repre