denounced two persons, whom they pretend to
have met upon the road just before the
discovery of the conflagration. But these
persons were seen by nobody else.

The act of accusation went on to state the
part taken by Jean Delorme in the murder.
But at this point the act of accusation ran off
into conjecture. It was supposed (it said)
that the father watched while the son
perpetrated the crime, and afterwards assisted him
in his means of concealment.

An abridged history of the lives of the
two prisoners was then given. It raked
up every detail likely to injure them in
the esteem of the public. It was, however,
obliged to admit that such was the estimation
in which their family was held in the
neighbourhood, that the authorities would
never have suspected them, if they had not
received private communications, pointing
out Jules and Jean Delorme as the authors
of the crime, and furnishing the police with
clues to their guilt. The act of accusation
ended with a flourish of trumpets about
the indefatigable zeal and intelligence
displayed by the police, and all the authorities,
in bringing the criminals to justice.

The prisoners were interrogated in turn by
the president; after which, witnesses were
examined. The first thirteen, however,
consisted only of the maire, the firemen, and
some soldiers, who described the fire, and the
finding of the corpse.

The fourteenth and fifteenth witnesses
were two doctors, who had been appointed
to make an examination of the body of the
murdered man, with a view to finding out
how the crime had been perpetrated. They
stated in their report, that the murderer must
have approached his victim from behind, and
then cleaved his skull with a hatchet. Only
two blows had been given; but these must
have caused instant death. During the
depositions of these two witnesses, both
prisoners were visibly affected.

Several police agents deposed to the arrest
of the accused; the perquisitions made in their
houses; and finally, to the finding of the
blood-stained hatchet in the younger
prisoner's garden well.

An ironmonger having a shop at La Reolle,
said: "A young man came into my shop
upon the twenty-second of July, about
twilight, and bought that hatchet, paying three
francs for it. He seemed to me to be about
the height of the principal accused, but it
was too dark for me to be able to distinguish
his features." The counsel for the prisoners
asked the witness if he would swear that
Jules Delorme was the person who bought
the hatchet. Witness said: " No, he would
not swear to it, because he thought that the
young man had blue eyes. The prisoner
had black eyes, but he might be mistaken."

The next witness examined was Victor
Leblanc, the nephew of the murdered man.
His appearance made a considerable sensation
in the court, as he was dressed in deep
mourning, and seemed to give his evidence
with great reluctance. He was described as
a fair, distinguished looking young man,
about twenty-six years of age. In answer
to the questions addressed to him by the
crown counsel, he stated, that he resided
at Le Reolle, only making short visits to
his uncle at Bazeille; that the first news
of the murder of his uncle reached him
the next morning by one of the labourers
employed upon the farm; that he did not
know whom to blame for the crime; that it
was true Jules Delorme was the only person
he knew of who had an interest in his uncle's
death; that he had been friends with Jules
from boyhood, and had never thought him
capable of such an action; and finally that he
himself was the sole heir of Eugène Gay.
This witness at the conclusion of his evidence
appeared to be quite overcome by emotion.

Thus closed the case for the prosecution.
The witnesses for the defence consisted of
Louise and her father and mother, who all
deposed to the prisoners having stayed with
them from six to eight o'clock on the
evening in question; and several villagers
who gave evidence as to the good terms upon
which the prisoners lived with all their
neighbours, and the universal respect with which
they were regarded.

The public prosecutor then addressed
the jury in a brief but very violent speech.
He contended that Jules Delorme had been
clearly proved to be guilty by the evidence
adduced, and urged that a signal example
ought to be made of him. He went on in
this strain:

"What! a young man who has been
intrusted with the moral education of our
children, who has been respected and
esteemed by all, has in the meantime nourished
in his heart the lust of wealth, until getting
the better of him it pushed him on to murder
a defenceless old man, and then fire the house,
the property of his heirs, to conceal his
execrable crime! This is the monster, you see
before you, gentlemen of the jury. In the
name of society and public morality, I demand
signal justice upon him. You must make a
terrible example of him, as a warning for
future generations!"

With regard to Jean Delorme, the public
prosecutor was rather less implicit, merely
observing, that as the son was certainly guilty,
it was to be supposed that the father was so
also. At any rate, the jury would appreciate
the relative guilt of each.

There was a deep silence spread over the
court as Monsieur Edouard de la Tour rose
from his seat beside the prisoners, and
commenced their defence. His speech, which
lasted for two hours, was elaborate and
eloquent. He pointed out with great clearness
the discrepancies in the evidence, and warned
the jury against finding a verdict of Guilty, in
a capital case, upon doubtful testimony.