Did M. de Cadanet inform him of the abstraction of the notes?
Never, until just before his death.
Desired to relate the circumstances of M. de Cadanet’s disclosure, he gave an account of his illness. It was not until he was apparently in extremis that the count informed him of what had taken place, and advised him to recover his money from M. de Beaudrillart.
Here the examination in chief was interrupted by Maître Barraud inquiring through the judge why M. de Cadanet had not brought the action himself. M. Lemaire could not say with certainty, but thought he had abstained owing to a sentiment of affection towards the defunct baron, M. de Beaudrillart’s father. The question was then put why in a matter of so much importance he had not caused M. de Cadanet’s deposition to be formally taken before witnesses. For the first time Lemaire very slightly hesitated. He then said that it had not seemed absolutely necessary, as M. de Cadanet showed him a letter from de Beaudrillart admitting the theft.
The Procureur remarked that the theft was admitted by the defence, and at once Maître Barraud demanded the production of the letter.
The judge agreed, and meanwhile the examination proceeded.
M. de Cadanet, speaking with great difficulty, had informed the witness that he had answered this insolent letter by another, in which he told M. de Beaudrillart that he would hear more of the transaction at a later date.
Here the judge again interposed, but it was to ask the prisoner whether he had received this letter.
Léon replied that he had, and that the contents were such as had been described, but that he had destroyed it at the time—an answer which created a decidedly unfavourable impression.
Lemaire, proceeding, said that M. de Cadanet was a man of few friends, who had lived altogether alone the last years of his life. During his last illness he had no one to care for and nurse him except he Lemaire himself, and his wife, M. de Cadanet’s niece by marriage.