being able to penetrate the crowd and reach the glass partition through which the body could be seen. On arriving at the window she had scarcely cast her eyes upon the victim when she grew pale and exclaimed, "Ah, mon Dieu! I think it is my poor child!" She looked again, and sank back half fainting. Recovering herself, she cried: "Yes, it is indeed he! there is the little scar upon his forehead; it is my poor boy! Last July I sent him on an errand to a neighbor's house in the Rue d'Ormesson, where I then lived. Since that time I have not seen him. He was not a child who would have run away. Some one stole him!" One thing, however, surprised the poor mother; her boy had left her wearing garments which were patched and threadbare, while the clothes upon this child were almost new.
This woman was employed in a house in the Rue du Four, and was named Chavaudret. She brought her brother-in-law, who unhesitatingly said, "That is little Philibert." Many of the inhabitants of the Rue d'Ormes son recognized the body, and a schoolmaster, who had known the boy as a pupil, was positive in his identification. He even recognized the little medallion.
Nothing then seemed to be now necessary but to ascertain by what means and for what purpose this child had been stolen from its mother, had been kept concealed for eight months, and then killed at the very gates of Paris. All efforts were being directed to the discovery of these facts, when, certain doubts arising in the minds of the authorities, the mother was again interrogated, and it was made clear that the poor woman and all the other witnesses had been mistaken. The little Philibert had upon his left leg a very noticeable mark which was not to be found upon the "child of Villette." A slight resemblance, exaggerated by their imaginations, had so worked upon the minds of these good people that they had been misled and no doubt had honestly believed the body to be that of Philibert.
More than six weeks passed without any new developments. The investigation came to a standstill, and there was no prospect of any light ever being thrown upon this mysterious affair, when it was learned that an other crime, committed under circumstances almost identical with those of the crime at Villette, had horrified the inhabitants of Bordeaux.
On the 10th day of May the mayor of Artigues, a little village a short distance from Bordeaux, was informed that some peasants had found, upon the road to Lantogne, the mutilated body of an unknown woman. Repairing to the spot the mayor viewed the body, which had been drawn from a little brook. The neck was deeply cut; the nose and cheeks were slashed; the upper jaw was broken, and the skull fractured. Her garments were in shreds.
While the mayor was making up his report, he was told that another body had been discovered about a hundred steps from the place where the first was found, in the same stream, near the mill of Lantogne. This last body was that of a little girl about nine years old, and presented a similar appearance to that of the woman, the wounds being almost identical.
A miller stated that just before daybreak he had seen a man bearing a large bundle going in the direction of the mill of Lantogne. This man had a hat upon his head. This was the only description the miller was able to give of him.
An examination showed that both the woman and child had been killed shortly after partaking of a meal. In a little road way, near the brook, several large pools of blood were discovered. Here then had been the scene of the crime. There had been no struggle, but one of the two victims had been struck at some distance from the other, doubtless while she was attempting to escape. No trace could be found of the weapon which had been used.
The news of this double crime reached Bordeaux in the evening. One Chaban, an innkeeper in the Rue de la Douane, on hear-
