TRIALS. "it appears to me, risen from Sir Benjamin Brodie's letter, founded on a consideration of the whole of the materials submitted to him, consists of six reasons for believing that Smethurst was guilty, and eight reasons for doubting his guilt; and it concludes in these words: "Taking into consideration all that I have now "stated, I own that the impression on my mind is that there "is not absolute and complete evidence of Smethurst's guilt." The reasons given are by no means confined to the medical points of the case, but range over every part of it, including inferences from the behaviour and moral character of the prisoner; and, indeed, of the six reasons against the prisoner, two only, and of the eight reasons in his favour, four only, proceed upon medical or chemical points. These opinions are expressed with a cautious moderation which, however creditable to the understanding and candour of the writer, excite regret at the absence of that opportunity which crossexamination would have afforded of testing his opinions fully, and of ascertaining the extent of his special acquaintance with the subjects on which his opinion was requested. The great interest of this trial lies in its bearing on the question of new trials in criminal cases. The jury convicted Smethurst on the evidence as it stood, and if it had remained unaltered their verdict would undoubtedly have been justified. After the trial it appeared that on the points mentioned by the Lord Chief Baron, further information appeared to be requisite. The Secretary of State thereupon asks a very eminent surgeon what he thinks of the whole case, and receives from him an opinion that "though the facts are full "of suspicion against Smethurst, there is not absolute and "complete evidence of his guilt." Sharing this view, the Secretary of State advises the grant of a free pardon. It is difficult to imagine anything less satisfactory than this course of procedure. It put all the parties concerned-the Secretary of State, Sir Benjamin Brodie, and the Lord Chief Baron-in a false position. Virtually they had to re-try the man with- TRIALS. out any of the proper facilities for that purpose,-without counsel, or witnesses, or an open court. The result was substantially that Smethurst, after being convicted of a most cruel and treacherous murder by the verdict of a jury after an elaborate trial, was pardoned, because Sir Benjamin Brodie had some doubts as to his guilt after reading the evidence and other papers, one of which was a report from the judge expressing his opinion that, owing to circumstances, the evidence had not been left to the jury as favourably for the prisoner as it ought to have been. The responsibility of the decision was thus shifted from those on whom it properly rested on to a man who, however skilful and learned as a surgeon, was neither a juryman nor a judge. It is difficult to say how, under the circumstances, Sir George Lewis ought to have acted, but it is easy to point out the course which would have been proper had it been lawful. There should have been a new trial, and no doubt there would have been one had ss. 544 and 545 of the Draft Criminal Code been in force. VOL. III. H H TRIALS THE CASE OF THE MONK LÉOTADE. LOUIS BONAFOUS, known in his convent as Brother Léotade, was tried at Toulouse in 1848, for rape and murder committed on the 15th April, 1847, on a girl of fourteen, named Cecile Combettes. The trial lasted from the 7th till the 26th February, 1848, when it was adjourned in consequence of the revolution. It was resumed on the 16th March, before a different jury, and ended on the 4th April. The case was as follows: Cecile Combettes, a girl in her fifteenth year, was apprenticed to a bookbinder named Conte, who was much employed by the monks known as the Frères de la Doctrine Chrétienne at Toulouse. On the 15th April, at about nine, Conte set out to carry to the monastery some books which the monks wanted to have bound. He put them in two baskets, of which the apprentice carried the smaller, and he and a woman called Marion, the larger. When he was let into the convent he saw, as he declared, two monks in the passage. One, Jubrien, wore a hat, the other, Léotade, who faced him, wore a hood. Conte wished Jubrien good day, left his umbrella by the porter's lodge, laid down the baskets, and sent home the servant Marion with the sheepskins in which they had been covered. He went up stairs to take the books to the director, and the porter went with him. He left Cecile to take care of his umbrella and to help to bring back the baskets. He stayed for three-quarters of an hour with the director 1 The authority referred to in this case is entitled, Procès du Frère Léotade accusé du double crime de viol et d'assassinat sur la personne de Cecile Combettes. Leipzig, 1851. The report of the first trial is full, though not so full as English reports usually are. The report of the second trial is a mere outline, but the two appear to have been substantially the same. The same witnesses were called, and the same evidence given. and then returned. Cecile was gone, but the umbrella was standing against the wall. Conte asked the porter for Cecile. He said he did not know where she was; she might be gone, or might be at the pensionnat. The establishment consisted of two buildings, the pensionnat and the noviciat. They stood on different sides of a street, and communicated by a tunnel which passed under it. Behind the noviciat was a large garden. Not finding Cecile, Conte went to see his uncle. He afterwards bargained for a pair of wheels, went to a place called Auch, where he slept, and returned next day to Toulouse. As Cecile was not heard of in the course of the day, various inquiries were made for her. 2 Her aunt, Mme. Baylac, inquired for her at the convent, but in vain. Her parents applied to the police, and they searched for her unsuccessfully. She was never seen alive again. Early on the following morning a grave-digger, named Raspaud, had occasion to go to a cemetery bounded on two sides by the wall of the garden of the monastery, and on a third (its figure was irregular) by a wall of its own, which divided it from a street called the Rue Riquet. The two walls met at right angles. On the ground in the corner formed by their meeting, Raspaud found the body of the girl. It was lying on the knees and the extremity of the feet. Its feet were directed towards the garden of the monks, its head in the opposite direction. Over the place where the body lay and on the wall of the Rue Riquet, was a handkerchief suspended on a peg. When the commissary of police (M. Lamarle) arrived, several persons, attracted by curiosity, had come up and were standing round the body, and they were in the act of getting over the wall by a breach at the corner. They had made footmarks all about, so that it was impossible to say whether or not there were other footmarks before they came. The commissary sent for the soldiers and had the public turned out, after which he walked round the cemetery inside. There were no marks of scaling the walls or of footsteps. At eight the judge of instruction arrived. 5 He was called as a witness at the trial, but on his appearance the president said, "It is well understood, sir, that you have • P. 107. 5 P. 263. 1 Pp. 171-174. 2 P. 183. 3 Pp. 105, 106. TRIALS. TRIALS. obeyed the citation served on you only because you thought proper," and he replied, "To begin with, and as a general principle, I refer to my procès verbaux, and to all that I have registered in the procedure." 1The procès verbaux are not printed in the trial, but the acte d'accusation professes to state their purport. According to this document, the judge of instruction found on the side of the monastery wall next to the cemetery a place from which a sort of damp mossy crust had lately been knocked off. This might, from its position, have been done by the rubbing of the branches of certain cypresses which overhung the wall of the Rue Riquet and touched the wall of the monastery garden. In the hair of the dead body were particles of earth of the same kind. On the top of the monastery wall were some plants of groundsel a little faded, also a wild geranium, one of the flowers of which had lost all its petals. In the hair of the dead body was one petal which the experts declared was a petal of the same kind. There was also a thread of tow which might have come from a cord, and there was a similar thread on the cypress branches. There were no marks on the wall of the Rue Riquet except that near the junction of the two walls, and about one foot eight inches (fifty centimètres) from the top, there was a tuft of groundsel which looked as if it had been pulled by a hand. Near the junction of the two walls was a small plant nearly rooted up, and on the point of the junction at the top was a small branch of cypress lately broken off. The wall between the Rue Riquet itself and the monastery garden was undisturbed, though there were plants upon it, and especially a peg of fir loosely inserted which would probably have been disturbed if a body had been passed along it. The left cheek of the body and the left side of its dress were covered with dirt. As the head was away from the monastery wall, and the wall of the Rue Riquet was on the left hand of the body as it lay, the dirt would have been on the right if the body had fallen over the wall of the Rue Riquet. From these circumstances, the acte d'accusation infers that the body could not have come into the cemetery over the wall 1 P. 268. |