Labastide, to have said to them: " Have you
heard of the crime committed at the château
near Mas d'Azil? Five persons (not four) have
been assassinated." He seems to have entered
into no further details, nothing is stated regarding
his appearance or manner, or the condition
of his clothes at the time spoken of, and three
other witnesses assert that he was seen by them
at Foix at five o'clock on the evening of the
twenty-fifth. So, supposing him to have taken
part in the crime, and that the report of both
sets of witnesses be true, he must have walked
thirty miles to the scene of the murder, aided in
its execution, returned to Foix, washed, and
changed his clothes, and been out and about
the town of Foix, making no attempt at
concealment, volunteering the news of the
assassination, all within five o'clock in the evening
and seven the following morning. Further,
among the facts against him, he denied the
statement that he had given some articles of
clothing stained with blood to be washed, saying
he had been bitten in the thigh by a dog,
which, it appears, he really had been; but, seeing
how a prisoner is browbeat and badgered by
the procureur, it would not be astonishing that,
partly from confusion in the brain of a man of
dull intelligence, partly from feeling that, even
if innocent, such a point might tell against him,
he should make such a denial; more particularly
when we bear in mind the singular but
undeniable fact which forms so noticeable a feature
in nearly all French trials, namely, that witnesses
in the most respectable positions, and
with no apparent interest in being untruthful,
are constantly found not worthy of credit on
their oath: those pro and con. deliberately swearing
to exactly contrary statements in matters
of plain fact.

How Audouy obtained the intelligence is
undoubtedly most unaccountable, supposing he
really made the statement as asserted, but this
merely rests on the evidence of one set of
witnesses opposed to the testimony of the other. The
last proof brought against him is the fact that,
after the murder, he had a sum of money sufficient
to purchase some animals from a caravan, in
order to set up an exhibition of beasts fighting.

He has, throughout his examination,
contented himself with simply denying the
assertions of the witnesses on the two first counts.
He declares that he was wholly unacquainted
with Latour, who also ignores him, nor has it
been possible to bring forward any proof of their
connexion. It is particularly remarkable that
though several times jeeringly attacked by
Latour, and urged by him both seriously and
tauntingly to confess, if he had anything to
reveal, he still absolutely denied all knowledge
of the affair; nor could the suggestion of the
procureur-general—that if he had not helped in
the murder, he might have known something
concerning it; if he had not stolen the money,
he might have assisted in carrying it away, in
either of which cases he was assured confession
would secure the utmost possible leniency—none
of these considerations could induce him to
alter his ground. When hard pressed, he, with
eyes full of tears, wrung his hands, exclaiming
how could he confess? He would be only too
delighted to give any information he could, but
adding piteously, " Je ne sais rien! Je ne sais
rien!" " I know nothing."

Listen to the procureur-général addressing
the jury: " It is certain to us that this man
(Audouy) has committed the crime, either as
witness, as confidant, or as accomplice. He will
not speak: it is for you, Messieurs les Jurés, to
force him to speak; you have the means at your
disposal." In other words: As we cannot prove
his guilt, let us condemn him; perhaps that may
open his mouth.

Finally, on the evidence we have stated,
Jacques Latour was condemned to death, and
suffered the punishment. As to the question
of his guilt, it is highly probable that he took
at least an active part in the murder, but we
submit that the legal evidence was wholly
insufficient to condemn him.

As to Hercule, we leave it to the impartial
reader to settle the question as to even the
probability of his guilt.

On sentence being pronounced against Latour,
he exclaimed, " Vive l'Empereur! vive
l'Empereur encore, et vive l'Empereur pour la
troisième fois!" On being asked, according to
form, if he would not appeal to the Cour de
Cassation, his sole reply was, " Allez dresser la
potence!" "Up with the gibbet!" Being
conducted to prison in the same omnibus with
Audouy, who entreated him to confess, he
fiercely addressed him, " Eh toi brigand! parles,
si tu sais quelque chose!" "And you, thief!
Speak you, if you know anything." He dined
with the utmost gaiety; seeing, at the end of the
repast, soldiers enter with the jailers, he guessed
that the object was to iron him, and he earnestly
supplicated to have his limbs left free. Being
told, however, that the orders were positive, he
became so violent that they were obliged to pin
him down on the floor, when he kicked the
smith violently, bit one of the jailers, and finally
had to be confined in a strait-waistcoat and laid
on a mattress; mattresses being placed on either
side of him and at his head, to prevent his dashing
himself against the walls.

For five days he refused to eat, trying to bite
a jailer who attempted to put food into his
mouth. But he resolutely refused to believe
that he was to be executed; it was, he said, all
an " estratagème"—he had persisted throughout
in considering every proof brought against him
as a trap—spoke of his plans when he should be
at liberty, and among these was one to the effect
that he would get up a play, with the director
of the Porte St. Martin, on his own adventures,
to be entitled La Victime et l'innocent Jacques
Latour. In this he was to play himself the
principal part, and acquire glory and fortune
for himself and the theatre. Later, however,
he changed his mind on this point. "They
will have a victim," he said; " let them." He
entreated that he might be executed as soon as
possible, to end his tortures. " Of a hundred