SINGULAR TRIAL. 
213 
supposed that a rich and honourable man, in order to obtain three 
thousand francs, transformed himself suddenly into an .assassin on 
the high road. In such a case, all concerned should have proceeded 
with extreme circumspection, and, above all, have been on their 
guard against prejudice. Quite the contrary. When called to the 
trial, the two women were obstinate in their declaration. Guesno 
made their deposition void by proving his alibi by evidence. Of 
what weight then was the testimony of these women ? Bruer, recog- 
nized by an innkeeper of Lieursaiot, proved, with the same success, 
that he neither had nor could have had any part in the crime for 
which the law pursued him. Lesurques thought himself equally sure 
of demonstrating his innocence. 
He called two distinguished artists of Paris, who gave evidence 
that they had dined with him the day the assassination took place, 
and had not left him till eleven o’clock at night. Their depositions 
were fortified by many important and satisfactory proofs. One of 
them recollected, too, that that very day he had mounted the guard, 
and the registers of the national guard confirmed his testimony. 
Two jewellers of the Palais Royal attested that he had been at one 
of their shops, bought a ladle, and changed some ear-rings. The 
tribunal required that the books should be produced. Here, by a 
new fatality, the register was misdated ! 
Separate this particular circumstance from Lesurques* situation, 
and it scarcely merits attention. It happens every day that mistakes 
are made in the dates of the month, and easily corrected. There 
is no merchant’s daily journal which does not furnish some example 
of this ; but such was the seriousness of the circumstances, and the 
disposition of the tribunal, that this incident filled the judges with 
the strongest conviction. They would hear nothing more. All the 
depositions which they had received were looked upon only as so 
many acts of conspiracy ; still, however, their real authority was not 
lessened. The unfortunate condition of Lesurques arose from an 
excess of confidence; if he had not been desirous of multiplying the 
proofs of his innocence, if he had been satisfied with calling the two 
artists whom we have mentioned, and the workmen who were employed 
in furnishing his lodgings, his alibi would have been proved. Nearly 
forty witnesses bore testimony to his probity ; most of them came 
from Donai at their own expense, in order to support and declare his 
innocence and virtue. None of these considerations could weaken or 
dispel the prejudices of the tribunal, or perhaps of the jurymen. They 
saw only the book of the jeweller, which was misdated. A single pre- 
sumption destroyed the most decisive testimonies. 
They shewed the accused a plaited spur found on the road, and 
the woman who had declared that she recognized Lesurques, said 
to him, I saw you mend it ; I lent you thread to tie the links which 
were broken.” Lesurques had nothing to oppose to the many charges 
which seemed to overwhelm him, but the undisturbed countenance 
and proud tranquillity of an honourable man. Courriol and his accom- 
plices denied the crime most obstinately. The decision of the public 
accuser was such as might have been expected from a magistrate 
known for his severity, and prejudiced by a multitude of circumstances 
