, 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 tlie garden, and there commanded me to bring her some arsenic, some black puddings, aud 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 Ma, dame 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 des royed, explain how, when, why-all which explanations would have cast doubt upon the testimony."

and a mouse-trap. Fearing lest Madame might be angry, I said to my wife-Here he would have been stopped by an English judge, because about to relate a conversation that occurred out of the hearing of the prisoner)«I 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 happen. ed to die... 1

个

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 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

1

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 young 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, been 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 chimneypiece, 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 7(1){In/somming] up the evidence, the Ávocat-Général stated, “with (great,) with repre

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

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? Était-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 open, 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 gum 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.'

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.

(*) 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.