Having secured Marie in solitary4 confinement5, and having thus left the house and all that it contained for a whole night at the free disposal of the Duparcs, the Procurator Revel6 bethought himself, the morning after the arrest of his prisoner, of the necessity of proceeding7 with something like official regularity8. He accordingly issued his requisition to the Lieutenant-Criminel to accompany him to the house of Monsieur Duparc, attended by the medical officers and the clerk, to inquire into the circumstances under which the suspected death by poisoning of Monsieur De Beaulieu had taken place. Marie had been imprisoned9 on the evening of the seventh of August, and this requisition is dated on the morning of the eighth. The document betrays one remarkable10 informality. It mentions the death of Monsieur De Beaulieu; but is absolutely silent on the subject of the alleged11 poisoning of seven persons at dinner the next day. And yet it was this latter circumstance only which first directed suspicion against Marie, and which induced Friley to lodge12 the information against her on which the Procurator was now acting13. Probably Monsieur Revel’s legal acumen14 convinced him, at the outset, that the story of the poisoned dinner was too weak to be relied on.
The officers of the law, accompanied by the doctors, proceeded to the house of the Duparcs on the eighth of August. After viewing the body of Monsieur De Beaulieu, the medical men were directed to open and examine it. They reported the discovery in the stomach of a reddish, brick-colored liquid, somewhat resembling the lees of wine. The mucous15 membrane16 was detached in some places, and its internal surface was corroded17. On examining the reddish liquid, they found it to contain a crystallized sediment18, which, on analyzation, proved to be arsenic19. Upon this, the doctors delivered it as their opinion that Monsieur De Beaulieu had been poisoned, and that poison had been the cause of his death.
The event having taken this serious turn, the first duty of the Lieutenant-Criminel (according to the French law) was to send for the servant on whom suspicion rested, to question her, and to confront her with the Duparcs. He did nothing of the kind; he made no inquiry20 after the servant (being probably unwilling21 to expose his colleague, the Procurator, who had illegally arrested and illegally imprisoned her); he never examined the kitchen utensils22 which the Commissary had locked up; he never opened the servant’s cupboard with the key that had been taken from her when she was searched in prison. All he did was to reduce the report of the doctors to writing, and to return to his office with his posse comitatus at his heels.
It was necessary to summon the witnesses and examine them. But the Procurator Revel now conveniently remembered the story of the poisoned dinner, and he sent the Lieutenant-Criminel to examine the Duparcs and their friends at the private residence of the family, in consideration of the sickly condition of the eaters of the adulterated meal. It may be as well to observe, here as elsewhere, that these highly indulged personages had none of them been sufficiently23 inconvenienced even to go to bed, or in any way to alter their ordinary habits.
On the afternoon of the eighth, the Lieutenant-Criminel betook himself to the house of Monsieur Duparc, to collect evidence touching24 the death by poison of Monsieur De Beaulieu. The first witness called was Monsieur Duparc.
This gentleman, it will be remembered, was away from home on Monday, the sixth, when Monsieur De Beaulieu died, and only returned, at the summons of his eldest25 son, at half-past eleven on the forenoon of the seventh. He had nothing to depose26 connected with the death of his father-in-law, or with the events which might have taken place in the house on the night of the sixth and the morning of the seventh. On the other hand, he had a great deal to say about the state of his own stomach after the dinner of the seventh — a species of information not calculated to throw much light on the subject of inquiry, which was the poisoning of Monsieur De Beaulieu.
The old lady, Madame De Beaulieu, was next examined, She could give no evidence of the slightest importance touching the matter in hand; but, like Monsieur Duparc, she had something to say on the topic of the poisoned dinner.
Madame Duparc followed on the list of witnesses. The report of her examination — so thoroughly27 had she recovered from the effects of the dinner of the seventh — ran to a prodigious28 length. Five-sixths of it related entirely29 to her own sensations and suspicions, and the sensations and suspicions of her relatives and friends, after they had risen from the table. As to the point at issue, the point which affected30 the liberty, and perhaps the life, of her unfortunate servant, she had so little to say that her testimony31 may be repeated here in her own words:
“The witness (Madame Duparc) deposed32, that after Marie had helped Monsieur De Beaulieu to get up, she (Marie) hastened out for the milk, and, on her return with it, prepared the hasty-pudding, took it herself off the fire, and herself poured it out into the plate — then left the kitchen to accompany Madame De Beaulieu to mass. Four or five minutes after Monsieur De Beaulieu had eaten the hasty-pudding, he was seized with violent illness.”
Short as it is, this statement contains several distinct suppressions of the truth.
First, Madame Duparc is wrong in stating that Marie fetched the milk, for it was the milk-woman who brought it to the house. Secondly33, Madame Duparc conceals34 the fact that she handed the flour to the servant to make the hasty-pudding. Thirdly, Madame Duparc does not mention that she held the plate for the pudding to be poured into, and took it to her father. Fourthly, and most important of all, Madame Duparc altogether omits to state that she sprinkled salt, with her own hands, over the hasty-pudding — although she had expressly informed her servant, a day or two before, that salt was never to be mixed with it. At a subsequent stage of the proceedings35 she was charged with having salted the hasty-pudding herself, and she could not, and did not, deny it.
The examination of Madame Duparc ended the business of the day of the eighth. The next morning the Lieutenant-Criminel, as politely attentive36 as before, returned to resume his inquiry at the private residence of Monsieur Duparc.
The first witness examined on the second day was Mademoiselle Duparc. She carefully followed her mother’s lead — saying as little as possible about the preparation of the hasty-pudding on the morning of Monday, and as much as possible about the pain suffered by everybody after the dinner of Tuesday. Madame Beauguillot, the next witness, added her testimony, as to the state of her own digestive organs, after partaking of the same meal — speaking at such prodigious length that the poison would appear, in her case, to have produced its principal effect (and that of a stimulating37 kind) on her tongue. Her son, Monsieur De Beauguillot, was next examined, quite uselessly in relation to the death by poison, which was the object of inquiry. The last witness was Madame Duparc’s younger son — the same who had complained of feeling a gritty substance between his teeth at dinner. In one important respect, his evidence flatly contradicted his mother’s. Madame Duparc had adroitly38 connected Monsieur De Beaulieu’s illness with the hasty-pudding, by describing the old man as having been taken ill four or five minutes after eating it. Young Duparc, on the contrary, declared that his grandfather first felt ill at nine o’clock —-exactly two hours after he had partaken of his morning meal.
With the evidence of this last witness, the examinations at the private residence of Monsieur Duparc ended. Thus far, out of the seven persons, all related to each other, who had been called as witnesses, three (Monsieur Duparc himself, Madame Beauguillot, and her son) had not been in the house on the day when Monsieur De Beaulieu died. Of the other four, who had been present (Madame De Beaulieu, Madame Duparc, her son and her daughter), not one deposed to a single fact tending to fix on Marie any reasonable suspicion of having administered poison to Monsieur De Beaulieu.
The remaining witnesses, called before the Lieutenant-Criminel, were twenty-nine in number. Not one of them had been in the house on the Monday which was the day of the old man’s death. Twenty-six of them had nothing to offer but hearsay39 evidence on the subject of the events which had taken place at, and after, the dinner of Tuesday. The testimony of the remaining three; namely, of Friley, who had lodged40 the information against Marie; of Surgeon Hébert, who had searched her pockets in the house; and of Commissary Bertot, who had searched her for the second time, after taking her to prison — was the testimony on which the girl’s enemies mainly relied for substantiating41 their charges by positively42 associating her with the possession of arsenic.
Let us see what amount of credit can be attached to the evidence of these three witnesses. Friley was the first to be examined. After stating what share he had taken in bringing Marie to justice (it will be remembered that he lodged his information against her at the instance of Madame Duparc, without allowing her to say a word in her own defense), he proceeded to depose that he hunted about the bed on which the girl had lain down to recover herself, and that he discovered on the mattress43 seven or eight scattered44 grains of some substance which resembled the powder reported to have been found on the crumbs45 in her pockets. He added further, that on the next day, about two hours before the body of Monsieur De Beaulieu was examined, he returned to the house, searched under the bed, with Monsieur Duparc and a soldier named Cauvin, and found there four or five grains more of the same substance which he had discovered on the mattress.
Here were two separate portions of poison found, then. What did Friley do with them? Did he seal them up immediately in the presence of witnesses, and take them to the legal authorities? Nothing of the sort. On being asked what he did with the first portion, he replied that he gave it to young Monsieur Beauguillot. Beauguillot’s evidence was thereupon referred to, and it was found that he had never mentioned receiving the packet of powder from Friley. He had made himself extremely officious in examining the kitchen utensils; he had been as anxious as any one to promote the discovery of arsenic; and when he had the opportunity of producing it, if Friley were to be believed, he held it back, and said not one word about the matter. So much for the first portion of the mysterious powder, and for the credibility of Friley’s evidence thus far!
On being questioned as to what he had done with the second portion, alleged to have been found under the bed, Friley replied that he had handed it to the doctors who opened the body, and that they had tried to discover what it was by burning it between two copper46 pieces. A witness who had been present at this proceeding declared, on being questioned, that the experiment had been made with some remains47 of hasty-pudding scraped out of the saucepan. Here again was a contradiction, and here, once more, Friley’s evidence was, to say the least of it, not to be depended on.
Sergeant48 Hébert followed. What had he done with the crumbs of bread scattered over with white powder which he had found in Marie’s pocket? He had, after showing them to the company in the drawing-room, exhibited them next to the apothecary49, and handed them afterward50 to another medical man. Being finally assured that there was arsenic on the bread, he had sealed up the crumbs, and given the packet to the legal authorities. When had he done that? On the day of his examination as a witness — the fourteenth of August. When did he find the crumbs? On the seventh. Here was the arsenic in this case, then, passing about from hand to hand, and not sealed up, for seven days. Had Surgeon Hébert anything more to say? Yes, he had another little lot of arsenic to hand in, which a lady-friend of his had told him she had found on Marie’s bed, and which, like the first lot, had been passed about privately51 for seven days, from hand to hand, before it was sealed up. To us, in these later and better days, it seems hardly credible52 that the judge should have admitted these two packets in evidence. It is, nevertheless, the disgraceful fact that he did so receive them.
Commissary Bertot came next. He and the man named Vassol, who had helped him to entrap53 Marie into prison, and to search her before she was placed in solitary confinement, were examined in succession, and contradicted each other on oath in the flattest manner.
Bertot stated that he had discovered the dust at the bottom of her pockets; had shaken it out on paper; had placed with it the little linen54 bag, containing a morsel55 of the sacramental wafer, which had been sewn to her petticoat; had sealed the two up in one packet; and had taken the packet to the proper office. Vassol, on the other hand, swore that he had shaken out the pockets, and had made up the packet; and that Bertot had done nothing in the matter but lend his seal. Contradicting each other in these details, both agreed that what they had found on the girl was inclosed and sealed up in one packet, which they had left at the office, neglecting to take such a receipt for it as might have established its identity in writing. At this stage of the proceedings the packet was sent for. Three packets appeared instead of one! Two were composed of paper, and contained dust and a little white powder. The third was the linen bag, presented without any covering at all. Vassol, bewildered by the change, declared that of these three separate objects he could only identify one — the linen bag. In this case, it was as clear as daylight that somebody must have tampered56 with the single sealed packet which Bertot and Vassol swore to having left at the office. No attempt, however, was made to investigate this circumstance; and the case for the prosecution57 — so far as the accusation58 of poisoning was concerned — closed with the examination of Bertot and Vassol.
Such was the evidence produced in support of a charge which involved nothing less than the life or death of a human being.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
adherents
|
|
| n.支持者，拥护者( adherent的名词复数 )；党羽；徒子徒孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
conspiracy
|
|
| n.阴谋，密谋，共谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
solitary
|
|
| adj.孤独的，独立的，荒凉的；n.隐士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
confinement
|
|
| n.幽禁，拘留，监禁；分娩；限制，局限 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
revel
|
|
| vi.狂欢作乐，陶醉；n.作乐，狂欢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
regularity
|
|
| n.规律性，规则性；匀称，整齐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
imprisoned
|
|
| 下狱，监禁( imprison的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
lodge
|
|
| v.临时住宿，寄宿，寄存，容纳；n.传达室，小旅馆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
acumen
|
|
| n.敏锐，聪明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
mucous
|
|
| adj. 黏液的，似黏液的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
membrane
|
|
| n.薄膜，膜皮，羊皮纸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
corroded
|
|
| 已被腐蚀的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
sediment
|
|
| n.沉淀，沉渣，沉积(物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
arsenic
|
|
| n.砒霜，砷；adj.砷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
utensils
|
|
| 器具，用具，器皿( utensil的名词复数 )； 器物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
touching
|
|
| adj.动人的，使人感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
eldest
|
|
| adj.最年长的，最年老的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
depose
|
|
| vt.免职；宣誓作证 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
prodigious
|
|
| adj.惊人的，奇妙的；异常的；巨大的；庞大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
deposed
|
|
| v.罢免( depose的过去式和过去分词 )；（在法庭上）宣誓作证 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
conceals
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，遮住( conceal的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
attentive
|
|
| adj.注意的，专心的；关心(别人)的，殷勤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
stimulating
|
|
| adj.有启发性的，能激发人思考的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
adroitly
|
|
| adv.熟练地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
hearsay
|
|
| n.谣传，风闻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
lodged
|
|
| v.存放( lodge的过去式和过去分词 )；暂住；埋入；（权利、权威等）归属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
substantiating
|
|
| v.用事实支持（某主张、说法等），证明，证实( substantiate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
positively
|
|
| adv.明确地，断然，坚决地；实在，确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
mattress
|
|
| n.床垫，床褥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
scattered
|
|
| adj.分散的，稀疏的；散步的；疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
crumbs
|
|
| int. (表示惊讶)哎呀 n. 碎屑 名词crumb的复数形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
copper
|
|
| n.铜；铜币；铜器；adj.铜(制)的；(紫)铜色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
sergeant
|
|
| n.警官，中士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
apothecary
|
|
| n.药剂师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
afterward
|
|
| adv.后来；以后 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
privately
|
|
| adv.以私人的身份，悄悄地，私下地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
credible
|
|
| adj.可信任的，可靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
entrap
|
|
| v.以网或陷阱捕捉，使陷入圈套 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
linen
|
|
| n.亚麻布，亚麻线，亚麻制品；adj.亚麻布制的，亚麻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
morsel
|
|
| n.一口，一点点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
tampered
|
|
| v.窜改( tamper的过去式 )；篡改；（用不正当手段）影响；瞎摆弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |