These contradictory and unbelievable explanations were the fruit of Meilhan"s efforts to cover the fact that the annuity was the price paid him by the Widow Lacoste for his part in the murder of her husband. It was to be remembered that M. Sabazan, whose testimony was impeccable, had seen Meilhan come from the house of Mme Lacoste, and that Meilhan had jingled money, saying he had just drawn the first payment of his annuity.
The accusation, in sum, concentrated on the suspicious relationship between Meilhan and the Widow Lacoste. It was a long doc.u.ment, but something lacking in weight of proof--proof of the actual murder, that is, if not of circ.u.mstance.
V
The process in a French criminal court was--and still is--somewhat long-winded. The Procureur du Roi had to go over the accusation in detail, making the most of Mme Lacoste"s intimacy with the ill-reputed old fellow. That parishioner, far from being made indignant by the animadversions of M. Ca.s.sagnol, listened to the recital of his misdeeds with a faint smile. He was perhaps a little astonished at some of the points made against him, but, it is said, contented himself with a gesture of denial to the jury, and listened generally as if with pleasure at hearing himself so well spoken of.
He was the first of the accused to be questioned.
It was brought out that he had been a soldier under the Republic, and then for a time had studied pharmacy. He had been a corn-merchant in a small way, and then had started schoolmaster.
Endeavour was made to get him to admit guilty knowledge of the death of the Lescure girl. He had never even heard of an abortion. The girl had a stomach-ache. This line failing, he was interrogated on the matter of being chased from his lodgings by the landlord-father, it would seem, of the aforementioned girl. (It may be noted that Meilhan lived on in the auberge after her death.) Meilhan had an innocent explanation of the incident. It was all a mistake on the part of Lescure. And he hadn"t been chased out of the auberge. He had simply gone out with his coat slung about his shoulders. Mme Lacoste went with him to patch the matter up.
He had not given Lacoste a drink, hadn"t even spoken with him, at the Riguepeu fair, but had pa.s.sed the day with M. Mothe. Cournet had told him of Lacoste"s having a headache, but had said nothing of vomitings.
He had not seen Lacoste during the latter"s illness, because Lacoste was seeing n.o.body.
This business of the annuity had got rather entangled, but he would explain. He had lodged 1772 francs with Mme Lacoste, and she had given him a bill on Castera. Whether he had given the money before or after getting the bill he could not be sure. He thought afterwards. He had forgotten the circ.u.mstances while in prison.
Meilhan stuck pretty firmly to his story that it was to deceive his son that he had fabricated the deed of annuity. He couldn"t help it if the story sounded thin. It was the fact.
How had he contrived to save, as he said, 3000 francs? His yearly income during his six years at Riguepeu had been only 500 francs. The court had reason to be surprised.
"Ah! You"re surprised!" exclaimed Meilhan, rather put out. But at Breuzeville, where he was before Riguepeu, he had bed and board free. In Riguepeu he had nothing off the spit for days on end. He spent only 130 francs a year, he said, giving details. And then he did a little trade in corn.
He had destroyed the annuity deed only because it was worthless. As for what he had said to the Mayor about drawing his first payment of the pension, he had done it because he was a bit conscience-stricken over fabricating the deed. He had been bragging--that was all.
The President, having already chidden Meilhan for being prolix in his answers, now scolded him for antic.i.p.ating the questions. But the fact was that Meilhan was not to be pinned down.
The first questions put to Mme Lacoste were with regard to her marriage and her relations with her husband. She admitted, incidentally, having begun to receive a young man some six weeks after her husband"s death, but she had not known him before marriage. Meilhan had carried no letters between them. She had married Lacoste of her own free will.
Lacoste had not asked any attentions from her that were not ordinarily sought by a husband, and her care of him had been spontaneous. It was true he was jealous, but he had not formally forbidden her pleasures.
She had renounced them, knowing he was easily upset. It was true that she had seldom gone out, but she had never wanted to. Lacoste was no more avaricious than most, and it was untrue that he had denied her any necessaries.
Taken to the events of the fair day, Tuesday, the 16th of May, Mme Lacoste maintained that her husband, on his return, complained only of a headache. He had gone to bed early, but he usually did. That night he slept in the same alcove as herself, but next night they separated.
In spite of the contrary evidence of witnesses, of which the President reminded her, Mme Lacoste firmly maintained that it was not until the Wednesday-Thursday night that Lacoste started to vomit. It was not until that night that she began to attend to him. She had given him lemonade, washed him, and so on.
The President was saying that n.o.body had been allowed near him, and that a doctor was not called, when the accused broke in with a lively denial.
Anybody who wanted to could see him, and a doctor was called. This was towards the last, the President pointed out. Mme Lacoste"s advocate intervened here, saying that it was the husband who did not wish a doctor called, for reasons of his own. The President begged to be allowed to hear the accused"s own answers. He pointed out that the ministrations of the accused had effected no betterment, but that the illness had rapidly got worse. The delay in calling a doctor seemed to lend a strange significance to the events.
Mme Lacoste answered in lively fashion, accenting her phrases with the use of her hands: "But, monsieur, you do not take into account that it was not until the night of Wednesday and the Thursday that my husband began to vomit, and that it was two days after that he--he succ.u.mbed."
The President said a way remained of fixing the dates and clearing up the point. He had a letter written by M. Lacoste to the doctor in which he himself explained the state of his illness. It was pointed out to him that the letter had been written by Mme Lacoste at her husband"s dictation.
The letter was dated the 19th (Friday). It was directed to M. Boubee, doctor of medicine, in Vic-Fezensac. Perhaps it would be better to give it in the original language. It is something frank in detail:
Depuis quelque temps j"avais perdu l"appet.i.t et m"endormais de suite quand j"etais a.s.sis. Mercredi il me vint un secours de nature par un vomiss.e.m.e.nt extraordinaire. Ces vomiss.e.m.e.nts m"ont dure pendant un jour et une nuit; je ne rendais que de la bile. La nuit pa.s.see, je n"en ai pas rendu; dans ce moment, j"en rends encore. Vous sentez combien ces efforts reiteres m"ont fatigue; ces grands efforts m"ont fait partir de la bile par en bas; je vous demanderai, monsieur, si vous ne trouveriez pas a propos que je prisse une medecine d"huile de ricin ou autre, celle que vous jugerez a propos. Je vous demanderai aussi si je pourrais prendre quelques bains. [signe]
LACOSTE PHILIBERT
Je rends beaucoup de vents par en bas. Pour la boisson, je ne bois que de l"eau chaude et de l"eau sucree. (Il n"y a pas eu de fievre encore.)
The Procureur du Roi maintained that this letter showed the invalid had already been taken with vomiting before it was considered necessary to call in a doctor. But Mme Lacoste"s advocate pointed out that the letter was written by her, when she had overcome Lacoste"s distaste for doctors.
The President made much of the fact that Mme Lacoste had undertaken even the lowliest of the attentions necessary in a sick-room, when other, more mercenary, hands could have been engaged in them. The accusation from this was that she did these things from a desire to destroy incriminating evidences. Mme Lacoste replied that she had done everything out of affection for her husband.
Asked by the court why she had not thought to give Dr Boubee any explanations of the illness, she replied that she knew her husband was always ill, but that he hid his maladies and was ashamed of them. He had, it appeared, hernias, tetters, and other maladies besides. It was easy for her to gather as much, in spite of the mystery Lacoste made of them; she had seen him rubbing his limbs at times with medicaments, and at others she had seen him taking medicines internally. He was always vexed when she found him at it. She did not know what doctor prescribed the medicaments, nor the pharmacist who supplied them. Her husband thought he knew more than the doctors, and usually dealt with quacks.
Mme Lacoste was questioned regarding her husband"s will, and on his longing to have an heir of his own blood. She knew of the will, but did not hear any word of his desire to alter it until after his death. With regard to Lacoste"s attempts to seduce the servants, she declared this was a vague affair, and she had found the first girl in question a place elsewhere.
Her letter to the Procureur du Roi demanding an exhumation and justice against her slanderers was read. Then a second one, in which she excused her absence, saying that she would give herself up for judgment at the right time, and begged him to add her letter to the papers of the process.
The President then returned to the question of her husband"s attempts to seduce the servants. She denied that this was the cause of quarrels.
There had been no quarrels. She did not know that her husband was complaining outside about her.
She denied all knowledge of the a.r.s.enic found in Lacoste"s body, but suggested that it might have come from one or other of the medicines he took.
Questioned with regard to her intimacy with Meilhan, she declared that she knew nothing of his morals. She had intervened in the Lescure affair at the request of Mme Lescure, who came to deny the accusation made by Lescure. This woman had never acted as intermediary between herself and Meilhan. Meilhan had not been her confidant. She looked after her late husband"s affairs herself. She had handed over the Castera note to Meilhan against his loan of 2000 francs, but she had never given him money as a present. Nor had she ever spoken to Meilhan of an annuity.
But Meilhan, it was objected, had been showing a deed signed "Euphemie Lacoste." The accused quickly replied that she never signed herself "Euphemie," but as "Veuve Lacoste." Upon this the President called for several letters written by the accused. It was found that they were all signed "Veuve Lacoste."
The evidence of the Fourcades regarding her conduct in their house at Tarbes was biased, she said. She had refused to take up some people recommended by her landlady. The young man who had visited her never remained longer than after ten o"clock or half-past, and she saw nothing singular in that.
The examination-in-chief of Mme Lacoste ended with her firm declaration that she knew nothing of the poisoning of her husband, and that she had spoken the truth through all her interrogations. Some supplementary questions were answered by her to the effect that she knew, during her marriage, that her husband had at one time suffered from venereal disease; and that latterly there had been recrudescences of the affection, together with the hernia already mentioned, for which her husband took numerous medicaments.
Throughout this long examination Mme Lacoste showed complete self-possession, save that at times she exhibited a Gascon impatience in answering what she conceived to be stupid questions.
VI
The experts responsible for the a.n.a.lysis of Lacoste"s remains were now called. All three of those gentlemen from Paris, MM. Pelouze, Devergie, and Flandin, agreed in their findings. Two vessels were exhibited, on which there glittered blobs of some metallic substance. This substance, the experts deposed, was a.r.s.enic obtained by the Marsh technique from the entrails and the muscular tissue from Lacoste"s body. They could be sure that the substances used as reagents in the experiments were pure, and that the earth about the body was free from a.r.s.enic.
M. Devergie said that science did not admit the presence of a.r.s.enic as a normal thing in the human body. What was not made clear by the expert was whether the amount of a.r.s.enic found in the body of Lacoste was consistent with the drug"s having been taken in small doses, or whether it had been given in one dose. Devergie"s confrere Flandin later declared his conviction that the death of Lacoste was due to one dose of the poison, but, from a verbatim report, it appears that he did not give any reason for the opinion.
At this point Mme Lacoste was recalled, and repeated her statement that she had seen her husband rubbing himself with an ointment and drinking some white liquid on the return of a syphilitic affection.
Dr Lasmolles testified that Lacoste, though very close-mouthed, had told him of a skin affection that troubled him greatly. The deceased dosed himself, and did not obey the doctors" orders. It was only from a farmer that he understood Lacoste to have a hernia, and Lacoste himself did not admit it. The doctor did not believe the man poisoned. He had been impressed by the way Mme Lacoste looked after her husband, and the latter did not complain about anyone. M. Lasmolles had heard no mention from Lacoste of the gla.s.s of wine given him by Meilhan.
After M. Devergie had said that he had heard of a.r.s.enical remedies used externally for skin diseases, but never of any taken internally, M.
Plandin expressed his opinion as before quoted.
The next witness was one Dupouy, of whom some mention has already been made. Five days before his death Lacoste told him that, annoyed with his wife, he definitely intended to disinherit her. Dupouy admitted, however, that shortly before this the deceased had spoken of taking a pleasure trip with Mme Lacoste.
Lespere then repeated his story of the complaints made to him by Lacoste of his wife"s conduct, of his intention of altering his will, and of his belief that Euphemie was capable of poisoning him in order to get a younger man. It was plain that this witness, a friend of Lacoste"s for forty-six years, was not ready to make any admissions in her favour. He swore that Lacoste had told him his wife did not know she was his sole heir. He was allowed to say that on the death of Lacoste he had immediately a.s.sumed that the poisoning feared by Lacoste had been brought about. He had heard nothing from Lacoste of secret maladies or secret remedies, but had been so deep in Lacoste"s confidence that he felt sure his old friend would have mentioned them. He had heard of such things only at the beginning of the case.
The Procureur du Roi remarked here that reliance on the secret remedies was the "system" of the defence.