on visiting this dormitory, five bags, with a thousand livres in each, were found in a corner, and a sixth containing the same amount less two hundred and nineteen livres and nineteen sous.
This new discovery settled the matter. The Lieutenant-Criminel cast a severe look upon the D'Anglades, and addressing the husband said sternly, "Either you or I committed this robbery."
Here was a prejudice irremediably established in the mind of the magistrate. It was in the D'Anglades' attic that a sum of money had been found, proving the robbery; it was upon the interested suggestion of Madame d'Anglade that another portion of the amount stolen had been discovered in a chamber occupied by the Count's servants; and then, besides, when it had been proposed to visit the attic, Madame d'Anglade had suddenly felt indisposed. There could be no doubt; there was no need of seeking further, the robbers were before him.
At the very outset the investigation, whoever might be the guilty ones, is tainted with a first vice; it is incomplete. It accepts as a definite proof an indication, serious it is true, but not conclusive. What then remained for the authorities to do? The Count, it is true, answered for his servants; but justice, which is from its very nature systematically incredulous, should not have admitted this excess of confidence. It should, while closely examining into the private life of the D'Anglades, have carefully scrutinized that of the Count's men, asking itself how this door, which had been so carefully locked on the family's departure, was found simply latched on their return?
The Lieutenant-Criminel, however, did nothing of the kind; he interrogated no one, stopped all further investigations, and assured himself of the persons of those whom he considered guilty. The Commissary of Police, who searched the D'Anglades, found upon them seventeen louis d'or and a Spanish double pistole. A new and aggravating circumstance; a portion of the money stolen was in just such pistoles! The unfortunate couple were at once arrested. The husband was conducted to Chatelet, the wife to For-l'Eveque. They were confined in close cells, like recognized criminals, and completely isolated from the outer world.
At the trial, which took place almost immediately, numerous proofs were forthcoming against the prisoners. Are they not always found against an accused declared guilty in advance? The Count's servants and friends were ready with important evidence. One of them recollected perfectly that D'Anglade, on seeing the Montgomerys return before the day fixed, appeared to be greatly disconcerted. Two others declared that they had seen D'Anglade near the door of the dormitory both before and after the return of the Count with his establishment. Another witness affirmed that D'Anglade was an habitual gambler; and still another deposed to having resided with him in a house from which some silver plate had been stolen and never traced.
The Lieutenant-Criminel thereupon rendered a jugement de competence, from which D'Anglade appealed, and on the 25th of October the Grand Council set this judgment aside.
Upon this decree being made, D'Anglade attacked the whole proceeding, taking the Lieutenant-Criminel severely to task. This was a mistake; for by a decree of Parliament, on the 13th of December, the case was remanded to this same magistrate, who to his first prejudice now added a dangerous malice.
Several new circumstances favored this hostile disposition of the Lieutenant-Criminel. It was proved, for example, that on Tuesday, the presumed day of the robbery, D'Anglade, contrary to his usual custom, did not go out for his supper, but remained in his rooms. Taking this circumstance in connection with his refusal to accept the Count's invitation to accompany him to Villebousin, was it not
