this, asked Madame Lafarge what she had put into the broth -who answered, orange-flowers. That she expressed her surprise openly on this, as it was plainly powder; but she had no suspicion then. This was about eight in the morning; at twelve she arose and went into the sick man's room, Madame Lafarge remaining behind in bed. That she saw the remains of the broth which had been placed on the chimney, and on the surface of it there were floating white globules. She showed them to the sister, who spoke about them to the physician, M. Bardon: he looked at the globules, and thought it to be lime from the wood ashes. The broth was then thrown away, but a thick residue remained; and as some more broth was made which did not appear like that thrown away, their suspicions were excited. The residue was locked up by the mother, and was afterwards by her given up to the officers of justice, examined by the chemists, who first analyzed the various matters supposed to contain poison; and by them declared to contain arsenic. We shall immediately speak of this analysis.

Some time after mid-day, Le Brun again says, she saw the wife up, and in the chamber of Lafarge; and as this part of her testimony is the most important portion of the evidence, we will give it in her words:

:

In the afternoon of the same day I was alone with Madame Marie, in the sick man's room. She took a glass of water coloured with wine, and went towards the commode. I was working near the chimney, and I could not see what she was doing; but I thought I heard the drawer open, and the noise of a spoon striking against the side of the glass 'comme si on délayait quelque chose.' (By

hensible inaccuracy, the evidence of this witness. She was distinctly asked by the judge

4

Où prit-elle cette poudre? Etait-ce dans le buvard?' Answer. Je la vis ' verser dans la tasse, mais je ne sais pas où elle l'avait prise. Je vis seulement, que cette poudre était dans un petit morceau de papier déchiré.' Question. Re• connûtes-vous le paquet de Denis? Etait-il de la même couleur?' ́Answer. 'Je 'n'y fis pas attention, ni à la couleur du papier.' Yet the Avocat-Général, summing 'up the evidence, said, Madlle. Brun a vu Marie Cappelle prendre la poudre blanche ⚫ dans le buvard, enveloppée dans le même papier bleu dans lequel Denis l'avait 'apporté!' Not a word of this was in evidence, and part was directly at variance with this statement.

VOL. III.

64

which, we suppose, the witness intended to signify hat Madame Lafarge was wetting something with the water in the glass, and mixing them together.) Madame then gave a spoonful to her husband, and he said, "That burns my throat. I asked what he said, and Madame repeated it. Did this astonish you?' 'No. I remarked the panada. She made it. I did not see her put any thing into it; but upon the surface I saw a white powder. I went near the commode, and I saw a train of powder. As the drawer was half opeu, I saw in it a little pot, and the train corresponded with the position of the pot.' (The words are-'et la traînée correspondait avec le pot'-that is, reached to it.) I tasted the powder, and it produced a pricking sensation for nearly an hour ('). I remarked also a glass upon the night-table: it contained some white powder, and some drops of water. I took it between my fingers: it was like a fine resisting sand. I compared it with the gum, and the gun glued my fingers. I remarked upon this to Madame Marie, who said it was gum Besides,» said she, «I am going to drink it; and she filled the glass with water, and I believed she drank it, but I will not affirm that she did.'

B

Question. After having drank, did she vomit ?'

Answer. I have not spoken of her vomiting on this occasion. She did so every day every time she ate she vomited. '

:

She then states that the residue of the chicken broth was sent to M. Eyssartier the chemist, at the request of Lafarge, to whom his mother communicated her suspicions; and afterwards says

'On the 13th, Monday morning, I entered early into his (Lafarge's) chamber: he told me not to leave him. Afterwards he breathed in his hands and said, «Oh! what a smell of garlic!» When he vomited, he said the same thing (2). M. L'Espinasse came in the night.......Some time later I took a little of the powder of the panada; I put it upon the coals, and smelt a smell of garlic. I had taken some of the white powder from the drawer, and gave it to M. Espinasse he did the same by it, and obtained the same smell. On the 13th, I showed M Espinasse the train of white powder in the commode: he scraped some of it together with the feathers of a pen. He took some also from the little pot, and carried it away wrapped in paper. '

(') This assertion shows how strongly prejudice was at work. It is the opinion of the most celebrated chemists, that arsenic has no taste. See Becks's Med. Jur. 737, and the opinion of Dr. Christison therein quoted.

() Here again is proof of the effect of prejudice. The smell of garlic proceeds from arsenic when thrown on a strong heat; but there is no proof of its producing such a smell upon the breath of one poisoned by it.

M. L'Espinasse confirmed this statement; and further declared, that he had given the paper containing the powder, with its contents, to the officers of justice. He also said, that upon his finding so strong a smell of garlic upon burning the powder, he had no longer any doubt as to Lafarge being poisoned. Nevertheless he left the sick man to his fate, and returned home.

The prisoner denied all knowledge of this little pot and its contents, saying that she never saw it-that she never put any poison into it. She was asked if she suspected any body of putting the pot there. It is impossible,' she answered, 'for

me to suspect any body. Besides, the whole house came into the room, and the place was not one very propitious for the hiding of any thing. My answer as to the little pot is, that I did not place it there-that I do not know who did-and that I have never seen it.'

Such was the evidence of Madile. Brun. It will at once be felt that another step is required to make this evidence bear against the accused. It was to be proved that the bottle and the powder contained arsenic. Before we proceed to the consideration of the modes taken to ascertain that fact, and of the extraordinary circumstances which attended the enquiry, we must give the only remaining piece of direct evidence— that of Emma Ponthieu, the friend of Madame Marie Lafarge.

She said, that she arrived at Glandier on the 11th, and found Lafarge ill. She describes the distress of his wife, and evidently believed her distress real. When suspicion of the poisoning arose, she heard Madame Marie address her maidservant with great warmth, and ask what she had done with the arsenic which she had confided to her? To this question the answer was, that she, the maid-servant, had put it into a hat, and placed the hat in the room of M. Lafarge. She adds, that on the morning of his death she saw his wife undress herself; and that while she was so doing, she saw, for the first time, a small box in the pocket of her apron. That she asked Clementine, the servant-maid, what it contained, who answered, gum. That the conversations she had heardthe suspicions of the mother of Lafarge and of Madlle. Brun,

the letter written by Marie on her coming first to Glandierall worked upon her recollection; and that, although her reason refused to believe that Marie was guilty, yet she was led to take some of the powder out of the box, and give it to her uncle. Her uncle kept the powder for some time in his pocket, and afterwards gave it to the officers of justice. She afterwards, in consequence of a vague suspicion in her own mind, asked the maid for the box which she had seen, and she after some delay brought it. The box, with its contents, was also given to the officers of justice. The conclusion sought to be established by this evidence is, that the box contained arsenic but was this proved? We shall now proceed to consider the procedure of the courts with respect to the solution of this difficulty.

:

During the various proceedings of this trial, three separate sets of experiments were made, by different chemists, upon1. The body of the deceased; and,

2. Various substances which were suspected to contain arsenic.

The first experiments were performed by the chemists of Brives. This was on the 22d of January 1840, a few days after the death of Lafarge.

The second experiments were made by the chemists of Limoges, at the trial--and the last were performed by Mons. Orfila, soon after the second, and before the verdict.

For the moment we will pass by the analysis of the body and its contents, and confine our attention to the other substances submitted to examination. And now, judicially, the first enquiry ought to be, in whose custody were these various substances before they came into the hands of the chemists? The answer to this question in an English court of justice, would of itself have been nearly sufficient to exculpate the prisoner; for with us it is not enough to cast suspicion upon the accused. The prisoner is never required to answer till the affirmative has been distinctly proved against him-so proved, that if he do not, cannot explain away the proofs, no doubt will remain upon the minds of reasonable men his guilt. But if only suspicion be raised, if any other hy

as to

pothesis is as reconcilable with the facts as that of the guilt of the prisoner, then our law says he must be acquitted. An hypothesis may be suggested in the present case, far more consonant with the facts than that of the guilt of the wife of the deceased--and that hypothesis is, that Lafarge did in reality die from natural causes; but that the arsenic was put in the various places by the hands of Denis the clerk, for the purpose of ruining his master's wife. Another hypothesis may yet be suggested, and from it we should not shrink-if Lafarge did die of poison, Denis was the murderer.

If any one will, with the first hypothesis respecting this man in his mind, look carefully into the evidence given by him, he will discover how wonderfully the facts agree with this supposition. From that evidence, which we have not space to analyze, it appears that Denis lived for some time by forgery, and that Lafarge himself was guilty, with his aid, of issuing factitious bills; and further, that he, Lafarge, forged (it is useless to hesitate as to the phrase) a letter, purporting to be written by his brother-in-law, M. de Violane. On the death of Lafarge this transaction, and his own utter insolvency, came to light; but there is much still hid in darkness. Denis played an important part in the whole of it, and had evidently a violent hatred against Madame Lafarge; because of the influence which she exercised over her husband, whom evidently Denis intended to employ as a tool. But the wife was in his way, and he was heard often to vow vengeance against her; two of the servants distinctly swearing to the very words he had employed. Denis as positively denied the charge; but there could be no doubt but that the simple peasant, Bardon, told the truth. The clerk Denis said to me,' says this man, that he wished to see Madame sawed into He said that to you?' 'four pieces.' 6 Yes.' • When did he say this?' In the stable, eight days after the death ' of M. Lafarge.' But had Madame done him any wrong?' Never, she was a most kind mistress, I never saw a better.' He was then persuaded that Madame was guilty?' 'Ohyes-he told me that she had poisoned him during fifteen , days. What more do you know? When Denis came

6

6