Judge. What did your wife do next?
. . . . .
Judge. You deny the statements of the witnesses (they related to Peytel’s demeanour and behaviour, which the judge wishes to show were very unusual;—and what if they were?). Here, however, are some mute witnesses, whose testimony you will not perhaps refuse. Near Louis Rey’s body was found a horse-cloth, a pistol, and a whip.... Your domestic must have had this cloth upon him when he went to assassinate you: it was wet and heavy. An assassin disencumbers himself of anything that is likely to impede him, especially when he is going to struggle with a man as young as himself.
Prisoner. My servant had, I believe, this covering on his body; it might be useful to him to keep the priming of his pistol dry.
The president caused the cloth to be opened, and showed that there was no hook, or tie, by which it could be held together; and that Rey must have held it with one hand, and, in the other, his whip, and the pistol with which he intended to commit the crime; which was impossible.
Prisoner. These are only conjectures.
And what conjectures, my God! upon which to take away the life of a man. Jeffreys, or Fouquier Tinville, could scarcely have dared to make such. Such prejudice, such bitter persecution, such priming of the jury, such monstrous assumptions and unreason—fancy them coming from an impartial judge! The man is worse than the public accuser.
‘Rey,’ says the judge, ‘could not have committed the murder, because he had no money in his pocket, to fly, in case of failure.’ And what is the precise sum that his lordship thinks necessary for a gentleman to have, before he makes such an attempt? Are the men who murder for money usually in possession of a certain independence before they begin? How much money was Rey,—a servant, who loved wine and women, had been stopping at a score of inns on the road, and had, probably, an annual income of four hundred francs,—how much money was Rey likely to have?
‘Your servant had to assassinate two persons.’ This I have mentioned before. Why had he to assassinate two persons,[11] when one was enough? If he had killed Peytel, could he not have seized and gagged his wife immediately?
‘Your domestic ran straight forward, instead of taking to the woods, by the side of the road: this is very unlikely.’ How does his worship know? Can any judge, however enlightened, tell the exact road that a man will take, who has just missed a coup of murder, and is pursued by a man who is firing pistols at him? And has a judge a right to instruct a jury in this way, as to what they shall, or shall not, believe?