1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/56ea3eaee332c26f5af56af17674e860.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=tT1GR55D9r5PvrzsfEto2O0ZXcQYGIk%7EKhBwCcsGkhv-%7EFE5Fa2ncvRxouin6hYDx6QCmkF1mGr3RrRJ2QRWv2Z1xnpEv2u2lvko7tuBD7A2oi7XWyWJmfPzZ01gejNO7Gmyz5mK2Z4JlQkkbALr%7E9gKhJfllAVZy%7E-7TCjGO36boPmvlW%7EuUgSgjWxlxzTd0O6nbJ06njvGk9tR-FQdvWbma-Qg1f0E6Ij8Ud31N3sQyXgnGmo0Jl3nFhVxZ9BvOoAf-%7EPLPdkJkS4GAbNFXJTdUp7dBScPHrlZsGZtXK-N59CbeeQjtijLuejwBvwj9PqTbPCQH2nU4HzmyvOrqw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
47270e92620929583356712c5c221f71
PDF Text
Text
national secular society
CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
iIHE records of every country abound in remarkable cases
of persons being judicially put to death for crimes of
j which they were entirely innocent. A mistaken resem
blance to the actual perpetrator, the fact of having been
Il seen near the spot where the crime was committed, or
some other suspicious circumstance, has contributed, to bring the
guilt and punishment on the wrong party. At one time, cases of
injustice were also committed by condemning individuals for murder
when it was not proved that a murder had been perpetrated. The
now well-recognised principle in criminal law, that no murder can
be held as having been committed till the body of the deceased has
been discovered, has terminated this form of legal oppression.
Another, and perhaps one of the most common causes of injustice in
trials of this nature, is the prevarication of the party charged with the
offence. Finding himself, though innocent, placed in an awkward
predicament, he invents a plausible story in his defence, and the
deceit being discovered, he is at once presumed to be in every
respect guilty. Sir Edward Coke mentions a melancholy case of
this kind; A gentleman was charged with having made away with
his niece. He was innocent of the crime ; but having, in a state of
No. 4.
1
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
trepidation, put forward another child as the one said to have been
destioyed, the trick was discovered, and the poor gentleman was
executed—a victim of his own disingenuousness.
The following interesting cases of loss of life from too great a
leaning on circumstantial or presumptive evidence, we select from
various authorities, English and foreign.
WILLIAM SHAW.
In the year 1721 there resided in Edinburgh an upholsterer
named William Shaw, who had a daughter, Catherine Shaw, who
lived with him. This young woman, it appears, encouraged the
addresses of John Lawson, a jeweller, to whom William Shaw
declared the most insuperable objections, alleging him to be a pro
fligate young man, addicted to every kind of dissipation. He was
forbidden the house; but the daughter continuing to see him clan
destinely, the father, on the discovery, kept her strictly confined.
William Shaw had for some time urged his daughter to receive
the addresses of a son of Alexander Robertson, a friend and neigh
bour; and one evening, being very urgent with her thereon, she
peremptorily refused, declaring she preferred death to being young
Robertson’s wife. The father grew enraged, and the daughter more
positive, so that the most passionate expressions arose on both
sides, and the words barbarity, cruelty, and death, were frequently
pronounced by the daughter. At length he left her, locking the
door after him.
The greater number of the buildings in Edinburgh are tall and
massive, divided into fiats or floors, each inhabited by one or more
families, all of whom enter by a general stair leading to the respective
floors. _ William Shaw resided in one of these flats, and a partition
only divided his dwelling from that of James Morrison, a watch-case
maker. This man had indistinctly overheard the conversation and
quarrel between Catherine Shaw and her father, and was particularly
struck with the repetition of the above words, she having pronounced
them loudly and emphatically. For some little time after the father
was gone out all was silent, but presently Morrison heard several
groans from the daughter. Alarmed, he ran to some of his neigh
bours. under the same roof; these entering Morrison’s room, and
listening attentively, not only heard the groans, but distinctly heard
Catherine Shaw two or three times faintly exclaim, 1 Cruel father,
thou art the cause of my death} Struck with this, they flew to the
door of Shaw5s apartment; they knocked—no answer was given.
The knocking was repeated—still no answer. Suspicions had
before arisen against the father; they were now confirmed. A con
stable was procured and an entrance forced: Catherine was found
weltering in her blood, and the fatal knife by her side. She was
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
alive, but speechless ; but on questioning her as to owing her death
to her father, was just able to make a motion with her head,
apparently in the affirmative, and expired. At this critical moment
William Shaw returns, and enters the room: immediately all eyes
are on him. Seeing his neighbours and a constable in his apart
ment, he appears much disordered ; but at the sight of his daughter
he turns pale, trembles, and is ready to sink. The first surprise
and the succeeding horror leave little doubt of his guilt in the
breasts of the beholders ; and even that little is done away on the
constable discovering that the shirt of William Shaw is bloody.
He was instantly hurried before a magistrate, and, upon the
depositions of all the parties, committed to prison on suspicion. He
was shortly after brought to trial, when in his defence he acknow
ledged his having confined his daughter to prevent her intercourse
with Lawson; that he had frequently insisted on her marrying
Robertson ; and that he had quarrelled with her on the subject the
evening she was found murdered, as the witness Morrison had
deposed ; but he averred that he left his daughter unharmed and
untouched, and that the blood found upon his shirt was there in con
sequence of his having bled himself some days before, and the
bandage becoming untied. Thèse assertions did not weigh a feather
with the jury when opposed to the strong circumstantial evidence of
the daughter’s expressions of 4 barbarity, cruelty, death,’ and of 4 cruel
father, thou art the cause of my death,’ together with that apparently
affirmative motion with her head, and of the blood so seemingly
providentially discovered on the father’s shirt. On these several
concurring circumstances was William Shaw found guilty, and
executed at Leith Walk in November 1721.
Was there a person in Edinburgh who believed the father guilt
less ? No, not one, notwithstanding his latest words at the gallows
were, 11 am innocent of my daughter’s murder.’ But in August
1722, as a man, who had become the possessor of the late William
Shaw’s apartments, was rummaging by chance in the chamber where
Catherine Shaw died, he accidentally perceived a paper that had
fallen into a cavity on one side of the chimney. It was folded as a
letter, which on being opened ran as follows : 4 Barbarous father, your
cruelty in having put it out of my power ever to join my fate to that
of the only man I could love, and tyrannically insisting upon my
marrying one whom I always hated, has made me form a resolution
to put an end to an existence which is become a burden to me. I
•doubt not I shall find mercy in another world, for sure no benevolent
Being can require that I should any longer live in torment to myself
in this. My death I lay to your charge : when you read this, con
sider yourself as the inhuman wretch that plunged the murderous
knife into the bosom of the unhappy—Catherine Shaw.’
This letter being shewn, the handwriting was recognised and
avowed to be Catherine Shaw’s by many of her relations and friends.
3
�CASES 'OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
It became the public talk; and the magistracy of Edinburgh, on a
scrutiny, being convinced of its authenticity, ordered the body of
William Shaw to be given to his family for interment; and as the
only reparation to his memory and the honour of his surviving
relations, they caused a pair of colours to be waved over his
grave in token of his innocence—a poor compensation, it will
be allowed, for an act of gross cruelty and injustice.
THE FRENCH REFUGEE.
The following singularly involved case is given in the Gentleman's
Magazine for 1754, with the initials of a correspondent, who states it
to have been extracted from some minutes of evidence made by his
grandfather in criminal causes in which he was counsel on the part
of the crown in the reign of Charles II.
Jaques du Moulin, a French refugee, having brought over his
family and a small sum of money, employed it in purchasing lots of
goods that had been condemned at the custom-house, which he again
disposed of by retail. As these goods were such as, having a high
duty, were frequently smuggled, those who dealt in this way were
generally suspected of increasing their stock by illicit means, and
smuggling, or purchasing smuggled articles, under colour of dealing
only in goods that had been legally seized by the king’s officers, and
taken from smugglers. This trade, however, did not, in the general
estimation, impeach his honesty, though it gave no sanction to his
character; but he was often detected in uttering false gold. He
came frequently to persons of whom he had received money with
several of these pieces of counterfeit coin, and pretended that they
were among the pieces which had been paid him : this was generally
denied with great eagerness ; but, if particular circumstances did not
confirm the contrary, he was always peremptory and obstinate in his
charge. This soon brought him into disrepute, and he gradually
lost not only his business but his credit. It happened that, haying
sold a parcel of goods, which amounted to £78, to one Harris, a
person with whom he had before had no dealings, he received the
money in guineas and Portugal gold, about several pieces of which
he scrupled; but the man having assured him that he himself had
carefully examined and weighed those very pieces, and found them
good, Du Moulin took them, and gave his receipt.
In a few days he returned with six pieces, which he averred were
of base metal, and part of the sum which he had a few days before
received of him for the lot of goods. Harris examined the pieces,
and told Du Moulin that he was sure there were none of them among
those which he had paid him, and refused to exchange them for
others. Du Moulin as peremptorily insisted on the contrary, alleging
that he had put the money in a drawer by itself, and locked it up till
4
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
he offered it in payment of a bill of exchange, and then the pieces'
were found to be bad; insisting that they were the same to which he
had objected. Harris now became angry, and charged Du Moulin
with intending a fraud. Du Moulin appeared to be rather piqued
than intimidated at this charge; and having sworn that these were
the pieces he received, Harris was at length obliged to make them
good ; but as he was confident that Du Moulin had injured him by a
fraud supported by perjury, he told his story wherever he went,
exclaiming against him with great bitterness, and met with many
persons who made nearly the same complaints, and told him that it
had been a practice of Du Moulin’s for a considerable time. Du
Moulin now found himself universally shunned; and hearing from
all parts what Harris had reported, he brought an action for defama
tory words, and Harris, irritated to the highest degree, stood upon
Ms defence; and in the meantime having procured a meeting of
several persons who had suffered the same way in their dealings with
Du Moulin, they procured a warrant against him, and he was appre
hended upon suspicion of counterfeiting the coin. Upon searching
his drawers, a great number of pieces of counterfeit gold were found
in a drawer by themselves, and several others were picked from
Other money that was found in different parcels in his scrutoire :
Upon further search, a flask, several files, a pair of moulds, some
powdered chalk, a small quantity of aqua regia, and several other
implements, were discovered. No doubt could now be entertained
of his guilt, which was extremely aggravated by the methods he had
taken to dispose of the money he made, the insolence with which he
had insisted upon its being paid him by others, and the perjury by
which he had supported his claim. His action against Harris for
defamation was also considered as greatly increasing his guilt, and
everybody was impatient to see him punished. In these circum
stances he was brought to trial; and his many attempts to put off
bad money, the quantity found by itself in his scrutoire, and, above
all, the instruments of coining, which, upon a comparison, exactly
answered the money in his possession, being proved, he was upon
this evidence convicted, and received sentence of death.
Now, it happened that, a few days before he was to have been
executed, one Williams, who had been bred a seal-engraver, but had
left his business, was killed by a fall from his horse : and his wife,
who was then pregnant, and near her time, immediately fell into fits
and miscarried. She was soon sensible that she could not live; and
therefore sending for the wife of Du Moulin, she desired to be left
fidone, and then gave her the following account :
That her husband was one of four, whom she named, that had for
many years subsisted by counterfeiting gold coin, which she had
been frequently employed to put off, and was therefore intrusted
with the whole secret; that another of these persons had hired
himself to Du Moulin as a kind of footman and porter, and being
5
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
provided by the gang with false keys, had disposed of a very con.
siderable sum of bad money by opening his master’s scrutoire, and
leaving it there in the stead of an equal number of good pieces which
he took out; that by this iniquitous practice Du Moulin had been
defrauded of his business, his credit, and his liberty, to which in a
short time his life would be added, if application were not imme
diately made to save him. After this account, which she gave iir
great agony of mind, she was much exhausted, and having given
directions where to find the persons whom she impeached, she fell
into convulsions, and soon after expired. Du Moulin’s wife imme
diately applied to a magistrate; and having related the story she had
heard, procured a warrant against the three men, who were taken
the same day, and separately examined. Du Moulin’s servant
steadily denied the whole charge, and so did one of the other two ;
but while the last was being examined, a messenger, who had been
sent to search their lodgings, arrived with a great quantity of bad
money, and many instruments for coining. This threw him into
confusion, and the magistrate improving the opportunity by offering
him his life if he would become evidence for the king, he confessed
that he had been long associated with the other prisoners and the
man who was dead, and he directed where other tools and money
might be found ; but he could say nothing as to the manner in which
Du Moulin’s servant was employed to put it off. Upon this discovery
Du Moulin’s execution was suspended; and the king’s witness
swearing positively that his servant and the other prisoner had
frequently coined in his presence, and giving a particular account of
the process, and the part which each of them usually performed, they
were convicted and condemned to die. Both of them, however,
denied the fact, and the public were still in doubt about Du Moulin.
In his defence, he had declared that the bad money which was
found together was such as he could not trace to the-persons of whom
he had received it; that the parcels with which bad money was
found mixed he kept separate, that he might know to whom to apply
if it should appear to be bad; but the finding of the moulds and
other instruments in his custody was a particular not yet accounted
for, as he only alleged in general terms that he knew not how they
came there ; and it was doubted whether the impeachment of others
had not been managed with a view to save him who was equally
guilty, there being no evidence of his servant’s treachery but that of
a woman who was dead, reported at second-hand by the wife of
Du Moulin, who was manifestly an interested party. He was not,
however, charged by either of the convicts as an accomplice, a
particular which was strongly urged by his friends in his behalf;
but it happened that, while the public opinion was thus held in
suspense, a private drawer was discovered in a chest that belonged
to his servant, and in it a bunch of keys, and the impression of one
in wax : the impression was compared with the keys, and that which
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
it corresponded with was found to. open Du Moulin’s scrutoire, in
which the bad money and implements had been found. When this
particular, so strong and unexpected, was urged, and the key
produced, he burst into tears and confessed all that had been alleged
against him. He was then asked how the tools came into his
master’s scrutoire ; and he answered, that when the officers of justice
Came to seize his master, he was terrified for himself, knowing that
he had in his chest these instruments, which the private drawer
could not contain; and fearing that he might be included in the
warrant, his consciousness of guilt kept him in continual dread and
suspicion : that for this reason, before the officers went up stairs,
he opened the scrutoire with his false key, and having fetched his
tools from his box in the garret, he deposited them there, and had
just locked it when he heard them at the door.
In this case even the positive evidence of Du Moulin, that the
money he brought back to Harris was the same he had received
of him, was not true, though Du Moulin was not guilty of perjury
either wilfully or by neglect, inattention or forgetfulness. And the
circumstantial evidence against him, however strong, would only
have heaped one injury upon another, and have taken away the life
of an unhappy wretch, from whom a perfidious servant had taken
away everything else.
BRUNELL’S CASE.
In the year 1742 a case of a very remarkable nature occurred
near Hull. A gentleman travelling to that place was stopped late
in the evening, about seven miles from the town, by a single high
wayman with a mask on his face, who robbed the traveller of a
purse containing, twenty guineas. The highwayman rode off by a
different path full speed, and the gentleman, frightened, but not
injured, except in purse, pursued his journey. It was growing late,
however, and being naturally much agitated by what had passed,
he rode only two miles further, and stopped at the Bell Inn, kept
by Mr James Brunell. He went into the kitchen to give directions
for his supper, where he related to several persons present the fact
of his having been robbed ; to which he added this peculiar circum
stance, that when he travelled he always gave his gold a peculiar
mark, and that every guinea in the purse taken from him was thus
marked. Hence he hoped that the robber would yet be detected.
Supper being ready, he retired.
The gentleman had not long finished his supper, when Mr Brunell
came into the parlour where he was, and after the usual inquiries
of landlords as to the guest’s satisfaction with his meal, observed,
* Sir, I understand you have been robbed not far hence this even
ing?’ ‘ I have, sir,’ was the reply. ‘And your money was marked?’
7
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
continued the landlord. ‘It was,’ said the traveller. ‘A circum
stance has arisen,’ resumed Mr Brunell, ‘ which leads me to think'
that I can point out the robber. Pray, at what time in the evening,
were you stopped ?’ ‘ It was just setting in to be dark,’ replied
the traveller. ‘ The time confirms my suspicions,’ said the landlord;
and he then informed the gentleman that he had a waiter, one John
Jennings, who had of late been so very full of money, and so very
extravagant, that he (the landlord) had been surprised at it, and had
determined to part with him, his conduct being every way suspicious;
that long before dark that day he had sent out Jennings to change
a guinea for him; that the man had only come back since the
arrival of the traveller, saying he could not get change ; and that,
seeing Jennings to be in liquor, he had sent him off to bed, deter
mining to discharge him in the morning. Mr Brunell continued tosay, that when the guinea was brought back to him, it struck him
that it was not the same which he had sent out for change, there
being on the returned one a mark, which he was very sure was not
upon the other; but that he should probably have thought no more
of the matter, Jennings having frequently had gold in his pocket of
late, had not the people in the kitchen told him what the traveller
had related respecting the robbery, and the circumstance of the
guineas being marked. He (Mr Brunell) had not been present
when this relation was made, and unluckily, before he heard of it
from the people in the kitchen, he had paid away the guinea to a
man who lived at some distance, and who had now gone home.
‘The circumstance, however,’ said the landlord in conclusion, ‘struck
me so very strongly, that I could not refrain, as an honest man, from
coming and giving you information of it.’
Mr Brunell was duly thanked for his candid disclosure. There
appeared from it the strongest reasons for suspecting Jennings; and
if, on searching him, any others of the marked guineas should be
found, and the gentleman could identify them, there would then
remain no doubt in the matter. It was now agreed to go up to his
room. Jennings was fast asleep : his pockets were searched, and
from one of them was drawn forth a purse, containing exactly
nineteen guineas. Suspicion now became certainty ; for the gentle
man declared the purse and guineas to be identically those of which
he had been robbed. Assistance was called; Jennings was
awakened, dragged out of bed, and charged with the robbery. He
denied it firmly; but circumstances were too strong to gain him
belief. He was secured that night, and next day taken before a
justice-of-the-peace. The gentleman and Mr Brunell deposed to
the facts upon oath ; and Jennings, having no proofs, nothing but
mere assertions of innocence, which could not be credited, was
committed to take his trial at the next assizes.
So strong seemed the case against him, that most of the man’s
friends advised him to plead guilty, and throw himself on the mercy
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
of the court. This advice he rejected, and when arraigned, pled not
guilty. The prosecutor swore to the fact of the robbery; though,
as it took place in the dusk, and the highwayman was in a mask,
lie could not swear to the person of the prisoner, but thought him
of the same stature nearly as the man who robbed him. To the
purse and guineas, when they were produced in court, he swore—as
to the purse, positively, and as to the marked guineas, to the best
of his belief; and he testified to their having been taken from the
pocket of the prisoner.
The prisoner’s master, Mr Brunell, deposed as to the sending of
Jennings for the change of a guinea, and to the waiter’s having
Drought back to him a marked one, in the room of one he had given
him unmarked. He also gave evidence as to the discovery of the
purse and guineas on the prisoner. To consummate the proof, the
man to whom Mr Brunell had paid the guinea, as mentioned, came
forward and produced the coin, testifying at the same time that he
had received it on the evening of the robbery from the prisoner’s
master in payment of a debt; and the traveller, or prosecutor, on
comparing it with the other nineteen, swore to its being, to the best
of his belief, one of the twenty marked guineas taken from him by
the highwayman, and of which the other nineteen were found on
Jennings.
The judge summed up the evidence, pointing out all the concurring
circumstances against the prisoner ; and the jury, convinced by this
strong accumulation of circumstantial evidence, without going out
of court brought in a verdict of guilty. Jennings was executed some
little time afterwards at Hull, repeatedly declaring his innocence up
till the very moment of his execution.
Within a twelvemonth afterwards, Brunell, the master of Jennings,
was himself taken up for a robbery committed on a guest in his
house, and the fact being proved on trial, he was convicted, and
ordered for execution. The approach of death brought on repent
ance, and repentance confession. Brunell not only acknowledged
he had been guilty of many highway robberies, but owned himself
to have committed the very one for which poor Jennings suffered.
The account which Brunell gave was, that after robbing the
traveller, he had got home before him by swifter riding and by a
nearer way. That he found a man at home waiting for him, to
whom he owed a little bill, and to whom, not having enough of other
money in his pocket, he gave away one of the twenty guineas which
he had just obtained by the robbery. Presently came in the robbed
gentleman, who, whilst Brunell, not knowing of his arrival, was in
the stable, told his tale, as before related, in the kitchen. The
gentleman had scarcely left the kitchen before Brunell entered it,
and there, to his consternation, heard of the facts, and of the guineas
being marked. He became dreadfully alarmed. The guinea which
he had paid away he dared not ask back again; and as the affair
No. 4-
9
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
of the robbery, as well as the circumstance of the marked guineas,
would soon become publicly known, he saw nothing before him but
detection, disgrace, and death. In this dilemma, the thought of
accusing and sacrificing poor Jennings occurred to him. The state
of intoxication in which Jennings was, gave him an opportunity of
concealing the money in the waiter’s pocket. The rest of the storv
the reader knows.
LADY MAZEL.
Ln
yefr *^9 there lived in Paris a woman of fashion, called
Lady Mazel. Her house was capacious, and four stories high : on
the ground-floor was a large servants’ hall, in which was a grand
staircase, and a cupboard where the plate was locked up, of which
°2-er°f the chambermaids kept the key. In a small room partitioned
oft from the hall slept the valet-de-chambre, whose name was Le
Brun : the rest of this floor consisted of apartments in which the
lady saw company ; which was very frequent and numerous, as she
hept public nights for play. In the floor up one pair of stairs was
the lady s own chamber, which was in the front of the house, and
was the innermost of three rooms from the grand staircase. The
key of this chamber was usually taken out of the door and laid on a
chair Dy
servant who was last with the lady, and who, pulling’
the door after her, it shut with a spring, so that it could not be
opened from without. In this chamber, also, were two doors ; one
communicating with a back staircase, the other with a wardrobe,
which opened to the back stairs also.
On the second floor slept the Abbé Poulard, in the only room
which was furnished on that floor. On the third story were two
chambers, which contained two chambermaids and two foot-boys ;
the fourth story consisted of lofts and granaries, whose doors were
always open. The cook slept below in a place where the wood
was kept, an old woman in the kitchen, and the coachman in the
stable.
On the 27th of November, being Sunday, the two daughters of Le
Brun, the valet, who were eminent milliners, waited on the lady, and
Were kindly received ; but as she was going to church to afternoon
service, she pressed them to come again, when she could have more
of their company. _ Le Brun attended his lady to church, and then
went to another himself ; after which he went to play at bowls, aS
was customary at that time, and from the bowling-green he went to
several places ; and after supping with a friend, he went home seem
ingly cheerful and easy, as he had been all the afternoon. Lady
Mazel supped with the Abbé Poulard as usual, and about eleven
o clock went to her chamber, where she was attended by her maids.
Before they left her, Le Brun came to the door to receive his orders
for the next day, after which one of the maids laid the key of thè
Tn
J
�Cases
of circumstantial evidence.
chamber door on the chair next it; they then went out, and Le Brun
tollowing them, shut the door after him, and talked with the maids
a few minutes about his daughters, and then they parted, he seeming
Still very cheerful.
In the morning he went to market, and was jocular and plea
sant with everybody he met, as was his usual manner He then
returned home, and transacted his usual business. At eight o’clock
he expressed surprise that his lady did not get up, as she usually
rose at seven : he went to his wife’s lodging, which was in the
neighbourhood, and told her he was uneasy that his lady’s bell
had not rung, and gave her seven louis-d’ors, and some crowns
in gold, which he desired her to lock up, and then went home
again, and found the servants in great consternation at hearing
nothing of their lady; when one observed that he feared she had
been seized with an apoplexy, or a bleeding at the nose, to which
she was subject. Le Brun said : ‘ It must be something worse;
my mind misgives me; for I found the street door open last
night after all the family were in bed but myself.’ They then
sent for the lady’s son, M. de Savonieie, who hinted to Le Brun
his fear of an apoplexy. Le Brun said: ‘ It is certainly something
worse ; my mind has been uneasy ever since. I found the street
door open last night after the family were in bed.’ A smith being
now brought, the door was broken open, and Le Brun' entering
first, ran to the bed ; and after calling several times, he drew
back the curtains, and said : 1 Oh, my lady is murdered ! ’ He
then ran into the wardrobe, and took up the strong box, which
being heavy, he said : 1 She has not been robbed ; how is this ? ’
A surgeon then examined the body, which was covered with no
less than fifty wounds : they found in the bed, which was full of
blood, a scrap of a cravat of coarse lace, and a napkin made into
a night-cap, which was bloody, and had the family mark on it ;
and from the wounds in the lady’s hands, it appeared she had
Straggled hard with the murderer, which obliged him to cut the
muscles before he could disengage himself. The bell-strings were
twisted round the frame of the tester, so that they were out of
reach, and could hot ring. A clasp-knife was found in the ashes
almost consumed by the fire, which had burned off all marks of
blood that might have ever been upon it: the key of the chamber
was gone from the seat by the door ; but no marks of violence
appeared on any of the doors, nor were there any signs of a
robbery, as a large sum of money and all the lady’s jewels were
found in the strong box and other places.
Le Brun being examined, said, that 1 after he left the maids on
the stairs, he went down into the kitchen ; he laid his hat and
the key of the street door on the table, and sitting down by the
fire to warm himself, he fell asleep ; that he slept, as he thought^
about an hour, and going to lock the street door, he found it
II
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
open ; that he locked it, and took the key with him to his chamber.
On searching him, they found in his pocket a key, the wards of
which were new filed, and made remarkably large ; and on trial
it was found to open the street door, the antechamber, and both
the doors in Lady Mazel’s chamber. On trying the bloody night*
cap on Le Brun’s head, it was found to fit him exactly, where
upon he was committed to prison.
On his trial it appeared as if the lady was murdered by some
persons who had been let in by Le Brun for that purpose, and
had afterwards fled. It could not be done by himself, because no
blood was upon his clothes, nor any scratch on his body, which
must have been on the murderer from the lady’s struggling ; but
that it was Le Brun who let him in seemed very clear. None-of
the locks were forced ; and his own story of finding the street
door open, the circumstances of the key and the night-cap, also a
ladder of ropes being found in the house, which might be supposed
to be laid there by Le Brun to take off the attention from himself,
were all interpreted as strong proofs of his guilt; and that he had an
accomplice was inferred, because part of the cravat found in the bed
was discovered not to be like his ; but the maids deposed that they
had washed such a cravat for one Berry, who had been a footman to
the lady, and was turned away about four months before for robbing
her. There was also found in the loft at the top of the house, under
some straw, a shirt very bloody, but which was not like the linen of
Le Brun, nor would it fit him.
Le Brun had nothing to oppose to these strong circumstances but
a uniformly good character, which he had maintained during twentynine years he had served his lady; and that he was generally]
esteemed a good husband, a good father, and a good servant. It
was therefore resolved to put him to the torture, in order to discover I
his accomplices. This was done with such severity on February 23,
1690, that he died the week after of the injuries he received,
declaring his innocence with his dying breath.
About a month after, notice was sent from the provost of Sens
that a dealer in horses had lately set up there by the name of John
Garlet, but his true name was found to be Berry, and that he had
been a footman in Paris. In consequence of this he was taken up,
and the suspicion of his guilt was increased by his attempting to
bribe the officers. On searching him a gold watch was found, which
proved to be Lady Mazel’s. Being brought to Paris, a person swore
to seeing him go out of Lady Mazel’s the night she was murdered,
and a barber swore to shaving him next morning, when, on his
observing the hands of his customer to be very much scratched,
Berry said he had been killing a cat.
On these circumstances he was condemned to the torture, and
afterwards to be broken alive on the wheel. On being tortured, he
confessed that, by the direction and order of Madame de Savoniere
12
�CASES OF circumstantial evidence.
(Lady Mazel’s daughter), he and Le Bran had undertaken to rob and
murder -Lady Mazel, and that Le Brun murdered her whilst he stood
at the door to prevent surprise. In the truth of this declaration he
persisted till he was brought to the place of execution, when, begging
to speak with one of the judges, he recanted what he had said against
Le Bran and Madame de Savoniere, and confessed ‘ that he came to
Paris on the Wednesday before the murder was committed. On.the
Friday evening he went into the house, and, unperceived, got into
one Of the lofts, where he lay till Sunday morning, subsisting on
apples and bread which he had in his pockets ; that about eleven
oxlock on Sunday morning, when he knew the lady had gone to
mass, he stole down to her chamber, and the door being open, he
•tried to get under her bed ; but it being too low, he returned to
the loft, pulled off his coat and waistcoat, and returned to the
Chamber a second time in his shirt; he then got under the bed,
where he continued till the afternoon, when Lady Mazel went to
church; that knowing she would not come back soon, he left his hiding
place, and being incommoded with his hat, he threw it under the bed,
and made a cap of a napkin which lay on a chair, secured the bellStrings, and then sat down by the fire, where he continued till he
heard her coach drive into the courtyard, when he again got under
the bed, and remained there ; that Lady Mazel having been in bed
about an hour, he got from under it and demanded her money ; she
•began to cry out, and attempted to ring, upon which he stabbed her,
and she resisting with all her strength, he repeated his stabs till she
was dead ; that he then took the key of the wardrobe cupboard from
the bed's head, opened this cupboard, found the key of the strong
box, opened it, and took out all the gold he could find, to the amount
of about six hundred livres ; that he then locked the cupboard, and
replaced the key at the bed’s head, threw his knife into the fire, took
Kg hat from under the bed, left the napkin in it, took the key of the
chamber from the chair, and let himself out; went to the loft, where
he pulled off his shirt and cravat, and, leaving them there, put on his
coat and waistcoat, and stole softly down stairs ; and finding the
Street door only on the single lock, he opened it, went out, and left it
open ; that he had brought a rope-ladder to let himself down from a
window if he had found the street door double-locked ; but finding
it otherwise, he left his rope-ladder at the bottom of the stairs, where
it was found.’
Thus was the veil removed from this deed of darkness, and all the
Circumstances which appeared against Le Brun were accounted for
leonsistently with his innocence. From the whole story, the reader
Will perceive how fallible human reason is when applied to circumstances; and the humane will agree that in such cases even improba
bilities ought to be admitted, rather than a man should be condemned
who may possibly be innocent.
13
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
THE YOUNG SAILMAKER.
■_ In the year 1723, a young man, who was serving his apprenticeship
in London to a. master sailmaker, got leave to visit his mother, to
spend the Christmas holidays. She lived a few miles beyond Deal
in Kent. He walked the journey ; and on his arrival at Deal in the
evening, being much fatigued, and also troubled with a bowel
complaint, he applied to the landlady of a public-house, who was
acquainted with his mother, for a night’s lodging. Her house was
full, and every bed occupied ; but she told him that if he would
sleep with her uncle, who had lately come ashore, and was boat
swain of an Indiaman, he should be welcome. He was glad to
-accept the offer, and after spending the evening with his new
.comrade, they retired to rest.
In the middle of the night he was attacked with his complaint, and
wakening his bedfellow, he asked him the way to the garden. The
boatswain told him to go through the kitchen ; but as he would find
it difficult to open the door into the yard, the latch being out of
■order, he desired him to take a knife out of his pocket, with which he
could raise the latch. The young man did as he was directed, and
after remaining nearly half an hour in the yard he returned to his
bed, but was much surprised to find his companion had risen and
gone. Being impatient to visit his mother and friends, he also arose
before day, and pursued his journey, and arrived at home at noon,
The landlady, who had been told of his intention to depart early,
was not surprised ; but not seeing her uncle in the morning, she
went to call him. She was dreadfully shocked to find the bed
stained with blood, and every inquiry after her uncle was in vain.
The alarm now became general, and on further examination, marks
of blood were traced from the bedroom into the street, and at intervals
down to the edge of the pier-head. Rumour was immediately busy,
and suspicion fell of course on the young man who slept with him,
■that he had committed the murder and thrown the body over the
pier into the sea. A warrant was issued against him, and he was
taken that evening at his mother’s house. On his being examined
and searched, marks of blood were discovered on his shirt and
.trousers, and in his pocket were a knife and a remarkable silver
coin, both of which the landlady swore positively were her uncle’s
property, and that she saw them in his possession on the evening he
retired to rest with the young man. On these strong circumstances
the unfortunate youth was found guilty.
He related all the above particulars in his defence ; but as he
•could not account for the marks of blood on his person, unless that
he got them when he returned to the bed, nor for the silver coin
being in his possession, his story was not credited. The certainty of
the boatswain’s disappearance, and the blood at the pier, traced, from
14
�CASES OF -CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
his'bedroom, were supposed to be too evident signs of his being
murdered ; and even the judge was so convinced of his guilt, that he
ordered the execution to take place in three days. At the fatal tree
the youth declared his innocence, and persisted in it with such
affecting asseverations, that many pitied him, though none doubted
the justness of his sentence. .
« .
The executioners of those days were not so expert at their trade
as modern ones, nor were drops and platfoims invented. The
young man was very tall; his feet sometimes touched the ground;
and some of his friends who surrounded the gallows contrived to
give the body some support as it was suspended. After being cut
down, those friends bore it speedily away in a coffin, and m the
course of a few hours animation was restored, and the innocent
gaved. When he was able to move, his friends insisted on his
quitting the country, and never returning. He accordingly travelled
by night to Portsmouth, where he entered on board a man-of-war on
the point of sailing for a distant part of the. world ; and as he
changed his name, and disguised his person, his melancholy story
never was discovered.
After a few years of service, during which his exemplary conduct
was the cause of his promotion through the lower grades, he was
at last made a master’s mate, and his ship being paid off in the
West Indies, he and a few more of the. crew were transferred to
another man-of-war, which had just arrived short of hands from
a different station. What were his feelings of astonishment, and
then of delight and ecstacy, when almost the first person he saw
On board his new ship was the identical boatswain for whose
murder he had been tried, condemned, and executed five years
before! Nor was the surprise of the old boatswain much less
when he heard the story.
An explanation of all the mysterious circumstances then took
place. It appeared that the boatswain had been bled for a pain
in the side by the barber, unknown to his niece, on the day of
the young man’s arrival at Deal; that when the young man
wakened him, and retired to the yard, he found the bandage had
•come off his arm during the night, and that the blood was flowing
afresh. Being alarmed, he rose to go to the barber, who lived
across the street, but a press-gang laid hold of him just as he left
I the public-house. They hurried him to the pier, where their boat
I was waiting; a few minutes brought them on board a frigate then
I under-way for the East Indies; and he omitted ever writing home
I to account for his sudden disappearance. Thus were the chief
circumstances explained by the two friends thus strangely met.
The Silver coin being found in the possession of the young man
could only be explained by the conjecture, that when he took the
knife out of the boatswain’s pocket in the dark, it is probable, as
the coin was in the same pocket, it stuck between the blades of
15
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
the knife, and in this manner became the strongest proof against
him.
On their return to England, this wonderful explanation was told
to the judge and jury who tried the cause, and it is probable they
never after convicted a man on circumstantial evidence. It also»
made a great noise in Kent at the time.*
THOMAS GEDDELY’S CASE.
Thomas Geddely lived as a waiter with Mrs Hannah Williams,
who kept a public-house at York. It being a house of much
business, and the mistress very assiduous therein, she was deemed,
in wealthy circumstances. One morning her scrutoire was fonnd.
broken open and robbed, and Thomas Geddely disappearing at th®
same time, no doubt was entertained as to the robber. About a
twelvemonth after, a man calling himself James Crow came to York,
and worked a few days for a precarious subsistence in carrying'
goods as a porter. Many accosted him as Thomas Geddely. He
declared he did not know them, that his name was James Cro^,
and that he never was at York before. But this was held as merely
a trick to save himself from the consequences of the robbery
committed in the house of Mrs Williams, when he lived with her as
waiter.
His mistress was sent for, and in the midst of many people
instantly singled him out, called him by his name (Thomas Geadely),
and charged him with his unfaithfulness and ingratitude in robbing
her. He was directly hurried before a justice-of-peace ; but on his
examination absolutely affirmed that he was not Thomas Geddely,
that he knew no such person, that he never was at York before, and
that his name was James Crow. Not, however, giving a good
account of himself, but rather admitting that he was a vagabond
and petty rogue, and Mrs Williams and another person swearing
positively to his person, he was committed to York Castle for trial
at the next assizes.
On arraignment, he pled not guilty, still denying that he was the
person he was taken for; but Mrs Williams and some others made
oath that he was the identical Thomas Geddely who lived with her
when she was robbed ; and a servant girl deposed that she had seen
him, on the veiy morning of the robbery, in the room where the
scrutoire was broken open, with a poker in his hand. The prisoner,
being unable to prove an alibi, was found guilty of the robbery. H®
was soon after executed, but persisted to his latest breath in
* We present this cáse as usually recounted by popular tradition, without vouching for
its accuracy. If true, the jury, it will be observed, had no proof of the murder, as the
body was not found. We doubt that any judge would have sanctioned such a gross
perversion of justice.
16
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
affirming that he was not Thomas Geddely, and that his name was
James Crow.
And so it proved! Some time after, the true Thomas Geddely,
who, on robbing his mistress, had fled from York to Ireland, was
taken up in Dublin for a crime of the same stamp, and there con
demned and executed. Between his conviction and execution, and
again at the fatal tree, he confessed himself to be the very Thomas
Geddely who had committed the robbery at York for which the
unfortunate James Crow had been executed.
We must add, that a gentleman, an inhabitant of York, happening
to be in Dublin at the time of Geddely’s trial and execution, and
who knew him when he lived with Mrs Williams, declared that the
resemblance between the two men was so exceedingly great, that it
was next to impossible to distinguish their persons asunder.
BRADFORD THE INNKEEPER.
Jonathan Bradford kept an inn in Oxfordshire, on the London
road to Oxford. He bore a respectable character. Mr Hayes, a
gentleman of fortune, being on his way to Oxford on a visit to a
relation, put up at Bradford’s. He there joined company with two
gentlemen, with whom he supped, and in conversation unguardedly
mentioned that he had then about him a considerable sum of money.
In due time they retired to their respective chambers ; the gentlemen
to a two-bedded room, leaving, as is customary with many, a candle
burning in the chimney corner. Some hours after they were in bed,
one of the gentlemen being awake, thought he heard a deep groan
in an adjoining chamber; and this being repeated, he softly awoke
his friend. They listened together, and the groans increasing, as of
one dying and in pain, they both instantly arose, and proceeded,
silently to the door of the next chamber, from which the groans had
seemed to come. The door being ajar, they saw a light in the room.
They entered, but it is impossible to paint their consternation on
perceiving a person weltering in his blood in the bed, and a man
Standing over him with a dark lantern in one hand, and a knife in
the other ! The man seemed as much petrified as themselves, but
his terror carried with it all the appearance of guilt. The gentlemen
soon discovered that the murdered person was the stranger with
whom they had that night supped, and that the man who was
Standing over him was their host. They seized Bradford directly,
disarmed him of his knife, and charged him with being the
murderer. He assumed by this time the air of innocence, positively
denied the crime, and asserted that he came there with the same
humane intentions as themselves ; for that, hearing a noise, which
was succeeded by a groaning, he got out of bed, struck a light,
armed himself with a knife for his defence, and had but that minute
17
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE,
entered the room before them. These assertions were of little avail *
he was kept in close custody till the morning, and then taken before
a neighbouring justice-of-the-peace. Bradford still denied the
murder, but with such apparent indications of guilt, that the justice
hesitated not to make use of this extraordinary expression on writing
his mittimus, i Mr Bradford, either you or myself committed this
murder.’
This remarkable affair became a topic of conversation to the whole
country. Bradford was condemned by the general voice of every
company. In the midst of all this predetermination, came on the
assizes at Oxford. Bradford was brought to trial • he pled not
guilty. Nothing could be stronger than the evidence of the two
gentlemen. They testified to the finding Mr Hayes murdered in his
bed, Bradford at the side of the body with a light and a knife, and
that knife, and the hand which held it, bloody. They stated that,,
on their entering the room, he betrayed all the signs of a guilty man;
and that, but a few minutes preceding, they had heard the groans
of the deceased.
Bradford’s defence on his trial was the same as before : he had
heard a noise ; he suspected that some villainy was transacting; he
struck a light, snatched up the knife, the only weapon at hand, to
defend himself, and entered the room of the deceased. He averred
that the terrors he betrayed were merely the feelings natural to
innocence, as well as guilt, on beholding so horrid a scene. The
defence, however, could not but be considered as weak, contrasted with
the several powerful circumstances against him. Never was circum
stantial evidence so strong, so far as it went. There was little need
for comment from the judge in summing up the evidence ; no room
appeared for extenuation; and the prisoner was declared guilty by
the jury without their even leaving the box.
Bradford was executed shortly after, still declaring that he was
not the murderer, nor privy to the murder, of Mr Hayes; but he
died disbelieved by all.
Yet were these assertions not untrue ! The murder was actually
committed by the footman of Mr Hayes; and the assassin, imine*
diately on stabbing his master, rifled his pockets of his money, gold
watch, and snuff-box, and then escaped back to his own room,
This could scarcely have been effected, as after-circumstances
shewed, more than two seconds before Bradford’s entering the
unfortunate gentleman’s chamber. The world owes this information
to remorse of conscience on the part of the footman (eighteen
months after the execution of Bradford) when laid on a bed of
sickness.. It was a death-bed repentance, and by that death the
law lost its victim.
It were to be wished that this account could close here; but there
is more to be told. Bradford, though innocent of the murder, and
not even privy to it, was nevertheless a murderer in design. He
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
had heard, as well as the footman, what Mr Hayes had declared at
¿Upper, as to the having a sum of money about him; and he went
to the chamber of the deceased with the same dreadful intentions as
the servant. He was struck with amazement on beholding himself
■anticipated in the crime. He could not believe his senses ; and in
turning back the bed-clothes to assure himself of the fact, he in his
agitation dropped his knife on the bleeding body, by which means
both his hands and the weapon became bloody. These circum
stances Bradford acknowledged to the clergyman who attended him
after sentence, but who, it is extremely probable, would not believe
them at the time.
Besides the graver lesson to be drawn from this extraordinary
case, in which we behold the simple intention of crime so signally
and wonderfully punished, these events furnish a striking warning
against the careless, and, it may be, vain display of money or other
property in strange places. To heedlessness on this score the
unfortunate Mr Hayes fell a victim. The temptation, we have seen,
proved too strong for two persons out of the few who heard his illtimed disclosure.
THE LYON COURIER.
In the month of April 1796—or, according to the dates of the
French republic, in Floreal of the year 4—a young man, named
Joseph Lesurques, arrived in Paris with his wife and his three
children from Douai, his native town. He was thirty-three years of
age, and possessed a fortune of 15,000 livres (.£600) per annum,
inherited from his own and his wife’s relations. He took apartments
■in the house of a M. Monnet, a notary in the Rue Montmartre, and
made preparations for permanently residing in Paris and educating
his children. One of his first cares was to repay one Guesno,
proprietor of a carrying establishment at Douai, 2000 livres he had
formerly borrowed. On the day following, Guesno invited Lesurques
to breakfast. They accordingly went to No. 27, Rue des Boucheries,
■in company with two other persons, one of whom, a gentleman of the
name of Couriol, was invited in consequence of his calling on the
third party just as they were sitting down to breakfast. The party
remained at table until nearly twelve o’clock, when they proceeded
to the Palais Royal, and after having taken coffee at the Rolonde du
Caveau, separated.
Four days afterwards (on the 27th April), four horsemen, mounted
on good but evidently hired horses, were observed to ride out of
Paris through the Barriere de Charenton, as if on a party of pleasure.
They all wore long cloaks, as was then the fashion, and sabres
hanging from their waists. One of the party was Couriol.
Between twelve and one o’clock the four horsemen arrived at the
pretty village of Mongeron, on the road to Melun and Burgagne.
19
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
One of the party had galloped forward to order dinner at the Hotel
de la Poste, kept by Sieur Evrard : after dinner, they asked for
pipes and tobacco, and two of them smoked. They paid their bill,
and went to the casino of the place, where they took four cups of
coffee. Shortly afterwards, they mounted their horses, and following
the road, shaded by beech-trees, which leads from Mongeron to the
forest of Lenart, they proceeded at a foot pace towards Lieursaint,
a picturesque village in the midst of a grove.
They arrived at Lieursaint about three o’clock in the afternoon,
and there made another long halt. The horse of one of the party
had lost a shoe, and another of them had broken the chain of his
spur by collision with a friend’s horse. This one stopped at the
beginning of the village, at the cottage of a woman named Chatelin,
a lemonade-seller, and requested her to give him coffee, and supply
him with some coarse thread to mend the chain of his spur. This
woman immediately complied with his double request ; and as the
traveller was not very skilful in mending the chain, she called her
servant, one Grossetete, who accordingly mended the chain, and
assisted in putting the spur on the boot. The three other horsemen
during this time had dismounted at one Champeaux’s, an innkeeper,
and took something to drink, while he conducted the horse and
horseman to the village smith, a man named Motteau. When the
horse was shod, the four travellers went to the café of the woman
Chatelin, where they played some games at billiards. At half-past
seven o’clock, after taking a stirrup-cup with the innkeeper, to whose
house they returned for their horses, they mounted and rode off
towards Melun.
On going in, Champeaux saw on a table a sabre, which one of the
travellers had forgotten to put in his belt: he wished his stable-boy
to run after them, but they were already out of sight. It was not
until an hour afterwards that the traveller to whom the weapon
belonged, and who was the same who had mended his spur, returned
at full galop for it. He then drank a glass of brandy, and set off at
full speed in the direction taken by his companions. At this
moment the mail courier from Paris to Lyon arrived to change
horses. It was then about half-past eight o’clock, and the night had
been for some time dark. The courier, after having changed horses,
and taken a fresh postilion, set out to pass the long forest of Lenart.
The mail at this period was a sort of postchaise, with a large trunk
behind containing the dispatches. There was one place only open
to the public, at the side of the courier. It was on that day occupied
by a man about thirty years of age, who had that morning taken his
place to Lyon in the name of Laborde, silk merchant.
The next morning the mail was found rifled, the courier dead in
his seat, with one wound right through his heart, and his head cut
nearly off; and the postilion lying in the road, also dead, his head
cut open, his right hand divided, and his breast wounded in three
,20
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
places. The postilion’s wounds were evidently inflicted by sabres,
wie-ldeci by two persons. One horse only was found near the
carriage. The mail had been robbed of 75,coo livres in assignats,
silver, and bank bills.
The officers of justice, in their researches, immediately discovered
that five persons had passed through the barrier of Rambouillet,
proceeding to Paris between four and five o’clock in the morning
after the murder. The horse ridden by the postilion was found
wandering about the Place Royale ; and they ascertained that four
horses, covered with foam, and quite exhausted, had been brought
about five o’clock in the morning to a man named Muiron, Rue des
Fosses-Saint Germain l’Auxerrois, by two persons who had hired
them the evening before. These two persons were named Bernard
and Couriol. Bernard was immediately arrested ; Couriol escaped.
In the course of the inquiry, it became evident that the criminals
must have been five in number. A description was obtained of the
four who had ridden from Paris and stopped at Mongeron and
Lieursaint, from the many persons with whom they had conversed
on the road. A description was also obtained of the man who had
taken his place with the courier under the name of Laborde, from
the person at the coach-office, and from those who had seen him
take his seat.
Couriol was traced to Chateau Thierry, where he lodged in the
house of one Bruer, with whom, too, Guesno, the carrier of Douai,
was also staying. The police proceeded there, and arrested Couriol:
in his possession was found a sum, in assignats, drafts, and money,
equal to about a fifth of what had been taken from the mail. Guesno
and Bruer were also taken into custody, but they proved alibis so
distinctly, that they were discharged as soon as they arrived in
Paris.
The Bureau Central intrusted to one Daubenton, the Juge de Paix
of the division of Pont-Neuf, and an officer of the judicial police, the
preliminary investigations in this affair. This magistrate, after
discharging Guesno, had told him to apply at his office the next
.morning for the return of his papers, which had been seized at
Chateau Thierry; at the same time he had ordered a police-officer,
named Heudon, to set out immediately for Mongeron and Lieur.saint, and to bring back with him the witnesses, of whom he gave a
list, so as to have them all together the next day at the central office
ready to be examined.
Guesno, being desirous to obtain his papers as soon as possible,
left home earlier than usual; just before he reached the central
office, he met his friend Lesurques. They conversed together, and
Guesno having explained the cause which took him to the office of
the Juge de Paix, proposed that he should accompany him. They
went to the office, then at the hotel now occupied by the Prefect de
Police; and as Citizen Daubenton had not yet arrived, they sat
at
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
down in the antechamber, on purpose to wait his arrival, and be
more speedily released.
About ten o’clock the Juge de Paix, who had entered his room by
a back door, was interrupted in his perusal of the documents, before
examining the witnesses, by the officer H eudon, who said : ‘ Among
the witnesses there are two, the woman Santon, servant of Evrard
the innkeeper at Mongeron, and the girl Grossetete, servant of the
woman Chatelin, the lemonade-seller at Lieursaint, who declare in
the most precise manner that two of the assassins were waiting
in the antechamber. They said they could not be mistaken, as
one of them had waited at the dinner of the four travellers at
Mongeron, and the other had conversed with them at Lieursaint,
and had remained more than an hour in the room while they played
at billiards.
;
The Juge de Paix, not believing this improbable statement, ordered
the two women to be introduced separately. He then examined each
of them, when they energetically repeated their statement, and said
that they could not be mistaken. He then, after warning the women
that life and death depended on their answers, had Guesno brought
into his room. ‘What,’ said the Juge, ‘do you want here?’ ‘I
come,’ replied Guesno, ‘for my papers, which you promised th
restore to me yesterday. I am accompanied by one of my friends
from Douai, my native place. His name is Lesurques. We met OH
the road, and he is waiting for me in the other room.’
The Juge de Paix then ordered the other person pointed out by
the two women to be introduced. This was Lesurques. He con
versed with him and Guesno for a few minutes, requested them to
walk into another room, where the papers would be brought to
them, and privately told Heudon not to lose sight of them. When
they had left the room, the magistrate again asked the women if
they persisted in their previous declarations ; they did persist; their
evidence was taken down in writing; and the two friends were
immediately arrested.
From this time the proceedings were pressed on with great
rapidity. Guesno and Lesurques, when confronted by the witnesses^
were recognised by almost all. The woman Santon asserted that
it was Lesurques who, after dinner at Mongeron, wished to pay in,
assignats, but that the tall dark man (Couriol) paid in silver.
Champeaux and his wife, the innkeepers at Lieursaint, recognised
Lesurques as the man who had mended his spur and returned
for his sabre. Lafolie, the stable-boy at Mongeron, the woman
Alfroy, a florist at Lieursaint, all recognised him. Laurent Charbant,
a labourer who had dined in the same room with the four horsemen^
deposed that he was the one who had spurs affixed to his boots
hussar fashion.
On the day of his arrest, Lesurques wrote to his friend the follow
ing letter, which was intercepted and added to the legal documents :
22
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
* My friend, since rny arrival in Paris I have experienced nothing
but troubles, but I did not expect the misfortune which now over
whelms me. Thou knowest me, and thou knowest whether I am
capable of degrading myself by crime; yet the most frightful of
crimes is imputed to me. I am accused of the murder of the courier
to Lyon. Three men and two women, whom I know not, nor even
their abode (for thou knowest that I have never left Paris), have had
the assurance to declare that they remembered me, and that I was
th© first who rode up on horseback. Thou knowest that I have
never mounted a horse since I arrived in Paris. Thou wilt see of
what vital import to me is such testimony as this, which tends to my
judicial assassination. Assist me with thy memory, and try to
remember where I was and what persons I saw in Paris—I think it
was the 7th or 8th of last month—so that I may confound these
infamous calumniators, and punish them as the laws direct.’
At the bottom of this letter were written the names of the persons
he had seen on that day : Citizen Tixier, General Cambrai, Made
moiselle. Eugenie, Citizen Hilaire, Ledru, his wife’s hairdresser, the
workmen engaged on his apartments, and the porter of the house»
He concluded by saying : ‘ Thou wilt oblige by seeing my wife
often, and trying to console her.’
Lesurques, Guesno, Couriol, Bernard, Richard, and Bruer were
tried before the criminal tribunal: the first three as authors ot
accomplices of the assassination and robbery; Bernard for having
Supplied the four horses ; Richard for having concealed Couriol and
his mistress Madeleine Breban, and for having concealed and divided
all or part of the stolen property ; Bruer for having received Couriol
and Guesno into his house at Chateau Thierry. In the course of
the trial, the witnesses who pretended to recognise Guesno and
Lesurques persisted in their declarations. Guesno and Bruer
produced evidence that completely cleared them. Guesno proved
his alibi in the most distinct manner, and thus insured his acquittal.
Lesurques called fifteen witnesses, all citizens, exercising respectable
professions, and enjoying the esteem of the public. He appeared at
the bar with remarkable confidence and calmness. The first witness
for the defence was Citizen Legrand, a countryman of Lesurques, a
wealthy silversmith and jeweller. He testified that, on the 8th, the
very day the crime was committed, Lesurques passed one part of the
morning with him. In addition, Aldenof, a jeweller, and Hilaire
Ledru Chausfer, affirmed that they had dined with the prisoner on
¡the same day at his relation’s, Lesurques, in the Rue Montorquiel.
They stated, that after dinner they went to a café, and after taking
Some liqueur, had seen him to his own house.
The painter Beudart added, that he meant to have dined with his
friends, but that being on duty as a National Guard, he could not
►arrive m time, but that he had been at Lesurques’s house the same
evening in uniform, and had seen him retire to rest. In support of
43
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
this deposition, this witness produced his billet-de-gardc, dated the
Sth. The workmen who were employed on the apartments Lesurques
was about to occupy, deposed that they had seen him several times
in the course of the 8th and 9th.
The jeweller Legrand, to corroborate his testimony, had stated
that on the day, the 8th Floreal (27th April), he had before dinner
made an exchange with Aldenof, or, at anyrate, that it was men
tioned in his book on that day. He proposed that his book should
be brought. It was examined in court, and discovered that the 9th
had been clumsily scratched out, and the 8th substituted. This at
once changed the favourable impression which had been produced
in favour of the prisoner, and the witness was ordered into custody.
He then lost all presence of mind, and owned that he was not certain
of having seen Lesurques on that day, but that, feeling convinced of
his innocence, he had altered his register to corroborate his own
testimony. This circumstance produced the most unfavourable
effect on the judges ; but in spite of the dark complexion of his case,
Lesurques continued to maintain his innocence.
The discussions and examinations were closed, and the jury had
retired to deliberate. At this moment a woman, in a violent state of
excitement, called aloud from the midst of the crowd in the court for
leave to speak to the president. She was, she said, urged by the
voice of conscience to save the tribunal from committing a dreadful
crime. On being placed before the judge, she declared that
Lesurques was innocent; that the witnesses had mistaken him for
a man of the name of Dubosq, to whom he bore an extraordinary
resemblance. This woman was Madeleine Breban, the mistress of
Couriol, and the confidante of his most secret thoughts ; who now
abandoned him, and avowed her own guilt to save Lesurques.
Madeleine Breban’s evidence was rejected, and the jury brought
in their verdict, by which Couriol, Lesurques, and Bernard were
condemned to death. Richard was sentenced to twenty-four years’
labour in irons ; Guesno and Bruer were acquitted.*
No sooner had sentence been pronounced, than Lesurques, rising
calmly, and addressing his judges, said : ‘ I am innocent of the crime
imputed to me. Ah ! citizens, if murder on the highway be atrocious,
to execute an innocent man is not less a crime.’ Couriol then rose,
and exclaimed : ‘ I am guilty; I own my crime ; but Lesurques is
innocent; and Bernard did not participate in the assassination!’
He repeated these words four times, and on returning to his prison,
wrote a letter to his judges, full of anguish and repentance, in which
was this passage : ‘ I never knew Lesurques. My accomplices were
Vidal, Rossi, Durochat, and Dubosq. The resemblance of Dubosq
has deceived the witnesses.’
Madeleine Breban presented herself, after sentence had been
At that period the sentence was part of the jury’s verdict.
=4
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
pronounced, to renew her declaration. Two parties attested that,
before the condemnation of the prisoners, Madeleine had said to
them that Lesurques had never had any connection with the guilty
parties—that he was the victim of his fatal likeness to Dubosq. The
declaration of Couriol caused some doubt in the minds of the judges.
They immediately applied to the Directory for a reprieve, who,
alarmed at the probability of an innocent man being executed,
applied to the legislative assemblies ; for all judicial means had been
exhausted. The message of the Directory to the ‘ Five Hundred’
was urgent. It requested a reprieve, and instructions on the subse
quent steps to be taken. It concluded in these words—1 Ought
Lesurques to die on the scaffold because he resembles a criminal?’
The legislative body passed to the order of the day, considering
that, as all legal forms had been fulfilled, a single case ought not to
cause an infraction of forms previously settled ; and that to annul
on such grounds the sentence legally pronounced by a jury would
subvert all ideas ofjustice and of equality before the law 1
The right of pardon had been abolished. Lesurques was left
without help or hope. He bore his fate with firmness and resigna
tion. On the day of his death he wrote to his wife the following
letter : ‘ My dear friend, we cannot avoid our fate. I shall, at any
rate, endure it with the courage which becomes a man. I send some
locks of my hair ; when my children are older, divide it with them.
It is the only thing that I can leave them.’
In a letter of adieu addressed to his friends, he merely observed :
‘ Truth has not been heard ; I shall die the victim of mistake.’
He published in the newspapers the following letter to Dubosq,
whose name had been revealed by Couriol: ‘ Man, in whose place I
am to die, be satisfied with the sacrifice of my life : if you be ever
brought to justice, think of my three children, covered with shame,
and of their mother’s despair, and do not prolong the misfortunes of
SO fatal a resemblance.’
On the loth of March 1797, Lesurques went to the place of execu
tion dressed completely in white, as a symbol of his innocence, with
his shirt turned over his shoulders. The day was Holy Thursday
(old style). He expressed his regret at not having to die the next
day, the anniversary of the Passion. On the way from prison to the
place of execution, Couriol, who was seated in the car beside him,
cried in a loud voice, addressing himself to the people : ‘ I am guilty,
but Lesurques is innocent! ’
When he reached the scaffold, already red with the blood of
Bernard, Lesurques gave himself up to the executioners, saying : ‘ I
pardon my judges ; the witnesses, whose mistake has murdered me ;
and Legrand, who has not a little contributed to this judicial assas
sination. I die protesting my innocence.’
Many of the jury afterwards expressed their regret at having given
credit to the witnesses from Mongeron and Lieursaint; and Citizen
25
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
Daubenton, the Juge de Paix, who had arrested Lesurques, and
conducted the first proceedings, resolved to investigate the truth
which could only be satisfactorily effected through the arrest and
trial of the four persons denounced by Couriol as his accomplices.
Two years elapsed without the conscientious magistrate being
able, in spite of all his inquiries, to discover the slightest trace of the
fugitives. At length, in examining the numerous warrants and
registers of persons daily brought to his bureau, he discovered that
Durochat, the individual whom Couriol had denounced as the one
who had taken his place by the side of the courier, under the name
of Laborde, had just been arrested for *a robbery he had latelyeffected, and lodged in St Pelagie. At the time of Lesurques’s trial,
it had come out in evidence that several persons, amongst others an
inspector of the post-mails, had preserved a perfect recollection of
the pretended Laborde, having seen him when waiting for the mail.
. Citizen Daubenton, by great exertion, secured the presence of the
inspector in the court on the day of Durochat’s trial. He was con
demned to fourteen years’ labour in chains ; and as the gens-d’armes
were conducting him to prison, the inspector recognised the prisoner
as the same person who had travelled in the mail towards Lyon,
under the name of Laborde, on the day on which the courier was
assassinated.
Durochat made but feeble denials, and was reconducted to the
Conciergerie, where Citizen Daubenton had him immediately
detained, under a charge arising out of the proceedings against
Couriol. The next morning the magistrate, assisted by Citizen
Masson, an officer of the criminal tribunal, took means for transfer
ring the prisoner to the prisons of Melun, where he arrived the same
evening. After being examined early the next morning, it was found
necessary to transfer him to Versailles, where he was to be tried.
The magistrate and officer set out, followed by two gens-d’armes, to
convey the prisoner to Versailles. On arriving at a village near
Grosbois, he asked for breakfast; for he had eaten nothing since
the preceding evening. The escort therefore stopped at the first inn,
and Durochat then asked to speak with the Juge de Paix alone.
The Juge having sent away the two gens-d’armes and the officer
Masson, although the latter made signs to him that it was dangerous
to remain alone with such a consummate villain, ordered breakfast
for himself and Durochat. A table was placed between them ; the
servant, acting under the orders of Masson, brought only one knife.
Citizen Daubenton took it to open an egg, when Durochat, looking
hard at him said : ‘Monsieur le Juge, you are afraid !’ ‘Of whom?’
said Daubenton.. ‘Of me,’ replied Durochat; ‘you have armed
yourself with a knife.’ The Juge de Paix presented the knife to him
by the handle, saying: ‘ There, cut me some bread, and tell me
what you know about the assassination of the courier.’
Durochat rose up from his seat, and laying down the knife, which
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
he had at first grasped menacingly, exclaimed: ‘You are a brave
fellow, citizen. I am a lost man—my time’s up—but you shall know
all!’ He then related every particular of the murder, which com
pletely agreed with the statements made by Couriol. He stated that
Vidal had projected the affair, and had communicated it to him at a
restaurant’s in the Champs Elysées. The criminals were Couriol,
Rossi, alias Beroldy, Vidal, himself, and Dubosq. Dubosq had
forged for him the passport in the name of Laborde, by means of
which he easily procured another for Lyon, to enable him to take
his place in the mail. He had also lent the party 3000 francs in
assignats. Bernard had supplied four horses for Couriol, Rossi,
Vidal, and Dubosq. They had attacked the carriage as the postilion
was slackening his pace to ascend a little hill. It was he (Durochat)
who had stabbed the courier at the instant that Rossi cut down the
postilion with a sabre ; he had then given up his horse to him
(Durochat), and had returned to Paris on that of the postilion. As
soon as they arrived there, they all met at Dubosq’s, Rue Croix-desPetits-Champs, where they proceeded to divide the booty. Bernard,
who had only procured the horses, was there, and claimed his share,
and got it. ‘ I have heard,’ he added, 1 that there was a fellow
named Lesurques condemned for this business ; but to tell the
truth, I never knew the fellow either at the planning of the business,
or at its execution, or at the division of the spoil. After the crime, I
lodged with Vidal, Rue des Fontaines. I left there soon afterwards,
on hearing of thè arrest of Couriol. The porter at that house was
named Perrier.’
The confession of Durochat was taken down in writing, and
signed by him. The party then resumed their journey to Versailles,
and on the prisoner’s arrival there, he renewed it before one of the
judges of the tribunal. ‘ The magistrate,’ says Citizen Daubenton,
‘ present at this examination observed to Durochat that Lesurques
had been sworn to as one of the party of four,’ and also 1 that he had
silver spurs on his boots, which he had been seen to repair with
thread, and that this spur had been found on the place where the
mail had been attacked.’ Durochat replied : ‘ It was Dubosq who
had the silver spurs. The morning we divided the plunder, I
remember hearing that he had broken one of the chains of his
Spurs ; that he had mended it where he dined, and lost it in the
scuffle. I saw in his hand the other spur, which he said he was
going to throw into the mixen.’ Durochat then described Dubosq,
and added that on the day of the murder he wore a blonde wig.
Some days after the arrest of Durochat, Vidal, one of the other
authors of the crime, was also arrested. Although all the witnesses
swore to him as one of the party who had dined and played at
billiards, he denied everything. Special proceedings were instituted
against him, and he remained in the prisons of La Seine.
Durochat was condemned to death, and executed. He underwent
27
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
his fate with perfect indifference. Vidal was shut up in the principal
prison of Seine and Oise, where the prosecution commenced in Paris
was carried on.
Towards the end of the year 8 (1799—1800), four years after the
assassination of the courier, Dubosq, having been arrested for a
robbery in the department of Allier, where he had retired under a
false name, was recognised in the prisons, brought to Paris, and
thence to Versailles, to be tried at the same time as Vidal before the
criminal tribunal. It was discovered, on searching the registers,
that while very young he had been condemned to the galleys for life
for stealing plate at the archbishop’s of Besançon. He had after
wards escaped at the time of the revolutionary disturbances.
Arrested in Paris for a second robbery, he had been again con
demned, and had again escaped. Retaken at Rouen, he had once
more succeeded in breaking loose ; and, arrested at Lyon, he had
a fourth time broken from prison. This last escape occurred a few
weeks before the attack on the mail and double murder in the forest
of Lenart. Like Vidal, however, he denied everything.
Dubosq and Vidal, being both confined in the prison of Versailles,
planned an escape, which they soon executed. After having climbed
over the two first walls, and reached the top of the outside one, they
had only to jump down twenty-five feet into the street. Vidal tried
first, and succeeded ; Dubosq broke his leg in the attempt, and was
retaken. The Citizen Daubenton spared no pains to discover
Vidal’s retreat. He learned soon afterwards that he had been
arrested at Lyon for new crimes. He was brought back to
Versailles ; but in the meantime Dubosq had recovered from his
fracture, and found means to break out of prison. Vidal was tried
alone, condemned, and executed.
At length, in the latter part of the year 9 (1800—1801), Dubosq
was again arrested, and immediately brought before the criminal
tribunal of Versailles. The president had ordered a blonde wig to
be placed on his head before the witnesses were called in. ‘ The
Citizen Perault, a member of the legislative assembly, and one of
those who had seen the four cavaliers who had dined at Mongeron
on the day of the murder of the courier, and who had recognised
Lesurques as one of them, stated that there was a striking resem
blance between Dubosq and Lesurques.’ The woman Alfroy, who
had before sworn to Lesurques as one of the four, declared that she
was mistaken in her evidence before the Tribunal de la Seine, and
that she was now firmly convinced that it was not Lesurques but
Dubosq that she had seen. To this evidence Dubosq replied by
stubborn denials. It was proved that he was intimate with the
guilty parties ; indeed he could not deny it ; and the declarations
of Couriol, Durochat, and Madeleine Breban had great weight
against him.
He was unanimously condemned, and was executed the 3d
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
Ventose, in the year io (22d February 1802). At length the last of
the accomplices denounced by Couriol and Durochat, Rossi, other
wise Ferrari, or the Great Italian, whose real name was Beroldy,
was discovered near Madrid, and given up at the request of the
French government. Having been tried and sentenced to death at
Versailles, he testified the utmost repentance, and went to execution,
receiving religious attentions from Monsieur de Grandpre. After the
.execution, Monsieur de Grandpre stated to the president that he had
been authorised by the criminal to confess the justice of his sentence.
The same Monsieur Grandpre deposited with M. Destrumeau, a
notary at Versailles, a declaration written and signed by Beroldy,
Otherwise Rossi, which was not to be published until six months after
his death. The following is the tenor of this document, which is
given, with all the particulars of this extraordinary case, in a memoir
written by M. Daubenton, the Juge de Paix. i I declare that the
man named Lesurques is innocent; but this declaration, which I
give to my confessor, is not to be published until six months after my
death.’
Thus terminated this long judicial drama. Ferrari, otherwise
Rossi, was the sixth executed as one of the authors or accomplices
in the murder of the Lyon courier, besides Richard, who was con
demned to the galleys for having received the stolen property, and
for having concealed Couriol, and afterwards assisted him to fly.
Yet it was most distinctly proved, in the course of the trials, that
there were only five murderers. The one who, under the name of
Laborde, had taken his place beside the courier, and the four horse
men who rode on the horses hired by Bernard, dined at Mongeron,
and took coffee and played at billiards at Lieursaint.
The widow and family of Lesurques, relying on these facts, and
supported by the declarations of Couriol and Durochat, the confes
sions of Rossi and Vidal, and the retractions of the witnesses in
Dubosq’s trial, applied for a revision of the sentence so far as con
cerned Lesurques, in order to obtain a rehabilitation (a judicial
declaration of his innocence, and the restoration of his property), if
he should be proved the victim of an awful judicial error.
The Citizen Daubenton devoted the latter part of his life, and the
greater part of his fortune to the discovery of the truth. In the con
clusion of his memoir, he declared that, according to his conviction,
there were sufficient grounds to induce the government to order a
revision of Lesurques’s sentence. He concluded his statement by
saying, that ‘ the Calases, the Servens, and all the others for whom
the justice of our sovereigns had ordered a like revision, had none
of them had such strong presumptions in their favour as the unhappy
Lesurques.’
But the right of revision no longer existed in the French code.
Under the Directory, the Consulate, and the Restoration, the applica
tions of the widow and family of Lesurques were equally unsuccessful.
29
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
All that the family could obtain was the restoration, in the last two years
of the reign of the elder Bourbons, of part of the property sequestrated
according to the law in force at the time of Lesurques’s execution
Since the revolution of 1830, the Lesurques family have made more
than one appeal to the legislature, but still in vain. The widow of
Lesurques died m the month of October 1842. His eldest son fell
fighting in the ranks of the French army. A son and daughter only
remained whom their mother, on her death-bed, adjured to continue
the pious labour which she had commenced the day when her husband
perished on the scaffold.*
net uus Dana
CASES IN AMERICA.
Mr,s
her.w?rk> Letters from New York (1843), advocating
the abolition of capital punishments, gives a notice of two cases in
which circumstantial evidence led to the execution of the wron^ parties.
The testimony from all parts of the world is invariable and con
clusive, that crime diminishes in proportion to the mildness of the
laws. The real danger is in having laws on the statute-book at
variance with universal instincts of the human heart, and thus
tempting men to continual evasion. The evasion even of a bad law
is attended with many mischievous results : its abolition is always
sate. In looking at capital punishment in its practical bearings on
the operation of justice, an observing mind is at once struck with the
extreme uncertainty _ attending it. Another thought which forces
itself upon the mind in consideration of this subject, is the danger of
convicting the innocent. Murder is a crime which must of course
be committed in secret, and therefore the proof must be mainly cir
cumstantial. This kind of evidence is in its nature so precarious,
that men have learned great timidity in trusting to it.
A few years ago a poor German came to New York, and took
lodgings, where he was allowed to do his cooking in the same room
with the family. The husband and wife lived in a perpetual quarrel.
One day the German came into the kitchen with a clasp-knife and a
pan of potatoes, and began to pare them for his dinner. The
thaiIihIpbenndSht tostatethat some of the highest juridical authorities in France either deny
that the condemnation of Lesurques was an error, or hold that, at all events the case is
far from being so clear as the advocates of his innocence would make it appear’ President
°n\°J
m°St enlShtenecl and conscientious members^ the Court of
Cassation, presented a Report on the case to the Council of State, which appeared hi the
^iar'o “of^hFnine wT’ KrOm, thl,S Feport.it aPPears that, at the trial of Dubosq in the
K a „ 9’ of th T! e witnesses who had previously testified to having seen Lesurques in
persisted in declaring that they had not been mistaken,
appearance
nf V* DuboSq’ they pointed out varioui differences between his
nfC* 1 f hesurques, on which they grounded their persistence. The voice
dLkStion^f thenr?nfeaChdb 6 ^ltnesse? ouSht> M- Zangiacomi thinks, to outweigh the
declaration of the confessed murderers that Lesurques was not an accomplice. As to the
nlrnUIjS-ta>Ce>°f m°re,. Rersons bei”g condemned and executed for the crime than were concetned in it, it is pointed out as remarkable that the accused themselves vary as to the exact
number, making it either five or six ; while, from the statements of two ofThe witnessed h
appears very probable that the assassins were seven in number.
witnesses, it
30
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
quarrelsome couple were in a more violent altercation than usual;
but he sat with his back towards them, and being ignorant of their
language, felt in no danger of being involved in their disputes. But
the woman, with a sudden and unexpected movement, snatched the
knife from his hand, and plunged it in her husband’s heart. She
had sufficient presence of mind to rush into the street and scream
murder. The poor foreigner, in the meanwhile, seeing the wounded
man reel, sprang forward to catch him in his arms, and drew out
the knife. People from the street crowded in, and found him with
the dying man in his arms, the knife in his hand, and blood upon
his clothes. The wicked woman swore, in the most positive terms,
that he had been fighting with her husband, and had stabbed him
with a knife he always carried. The unfortunate German knew too
little English to understand her accusation or to tell his own story.
He was dragged off to prison, and the true state of the case was
made known through an interpreter; but it was not believed.
Circumstantial evidence was exceedingly strong against the accused,
and the real criminal swore unhesitatingly that she saw him commit
the murder. He was executed, notwithstanding the most persevering
efforts of his lawyer, John Anthon, Esq., whose convictions of the
man’s innocence were so painfully strong, that from that day to this
he has refused to have any connection with a capital case. Some
years after this tragic event the woman died, and on her death-bed
confessed her agency in the diabolical transaction; but her poor
victim could receive no benefit from this tardy repentance; society
had wantonly thrown away its power to atone for the grievous wrong.
Many of my readers will doubtless recollect the tragical fate of
Burton, in Missouri, on which a novel was founded, that still
circulates in the libraries. A young lady, belonging to a genteel
and very proud family in Missouri, was beloved by a young man
named Burton; but unfortunately her affections were fixed on
another less worthy. He left her with a tarnished reputation. She
was by nature energetic and high-spirited ; her family were proud;
and she lived in the midst of a society which considered revenge a
virtue, and named it honour. Misled by this false popular sentiment
and her own excited feelings, she resolved to repay her lover’s
treachery with death. But she kept her secret so well, that no one
suspected her purpose, though she purchased pistols, and practised
with them daily. Mr Burton gave evidence of his strong attach
ment by renewing his attentions when the world looked most coldly
upon her. His generous kindness won her bleeding heart, but the
softening influence of love did not lead her to forego the dreadful
purpose she had formed. She watched for a favourable opportunity,
and shot her betrayer when no one was near to witness the horrible
deed. Some little incident excited the suspicion of Burton, and he
induced her to confess to him the whole transaction. It was obvious
enough that suspicion would naturally fasten upon him, the well-
31
�CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
known lover of her who had been so deeply injured. He was
arrested, but succeeded in persuading her that he was in no danger.
Circumstantial evidence was fearfully against him, and he soon saw
that his chance was doubtful; but with affectionate magnanimity he
concealed this from her. He was convicted and condemned. A
short time before the execution he endeavoured to cut his throat •
but his life was saved for the cruel purpose of taking it away
according to the cold-blooded barbarism of the law. Pale and
wounded, he was hoisted to the gallows before the gaze of a
Christian community.
The guilty cause of all this was almost frantic when she found
that he had thus sacrificed himself to save her. She immediately
published the whole history of her wrongs and her revenge. Her
keen sense of wounded honour was in accordance with public
sentiment, her wrongs excited indignation and compassion, and the
knowledge that an innocent and magnanimous man had been so
brutally treated, excited a general revulsion of popular feeling. No
one wished for another victim, and she was left unpunished, save by
the dreadful records of her memory.
32
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Cases of circumstantial evidence
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [S.l.]
Collation: 32 p. : ill. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N117
Subject
The topic of the resource
Law
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Cases of circumstantial evidence), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Circumstantial
Crime and criminals
Evidence
Law
NSS