Chapter 17

M. Devergie said that science did not admit the presence of arsenic as a normal thing in the human body. What was not made clear by the expert was whether the amount of arsenic 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 glass of wine given him by Meilhan.

After M. Devergie had said that he had heard of arsenical 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 assumed 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.

That seemed to be the case. The 'system' of the prosecution, on the other hand, was to snatch at anything likely to appear as evidence against the two accused. The points mainly at issue were as follows:

(1) Did Meilhan have a chance of giving Lacoste a drink at the fair?

(2) Did Lacoste become violently sick immediately on his return from the fair?

(3) Did Lacoste suffer from the ailments attributed to him by his wife, and was he in the habit of dosing himself?

(4) Did Meilhan receive money from Mme Lacoste, and, particularly, did she propose to allow him the supposed annuity?

With regard to (1), several witnesses declared that Lacoste had complained to them of feeling ill after drinking with Meilhan, but none could speak of seeing the two men together. M. Mothe, the friend cited by Meilhan, less positive in his evidence in court than the acte d'accusation made him out to be, could not remember if it was on the 16th of May that he had spent the whole afternoon with Meilhan. It was so much his habit to be with Meilhan during the days of the fair that he had no distinct recollection of any of them. Another witness, having business with Lacoste, declared that on the day in question it was impossible for Meilhan to have been alone with Lacoste during the time that the latter was supposed to have taken the poisoned drink. Lescure, in whose auberge Lacoste was supposed to have had the drink, failed to remember such an incident. The evidence that Meilhan had given Lacoste the drink was all second-hand; that to the contrary was definite.

For the most part the evidence with regard to (2), that Lacoste became very ill immediately on his return from the fair, was hearsay. The servants belonging to the Lacoste household all maintained that the vomiting did not seize the old man until the night of Wednesday-Thursday. Indeed, two witnesses testified that the old man, in spite of his supposed headache, essayed to show them how well he could dance. This was on his return from the fair where he was supposed to have been given a poisoned drink at three o'clock. The evidence regarding the seclusion of Lacoste by his wife was contradictory, but the most direct of it maintained that it was the old man himself, if anyone, who wanted to be left alone. On this point arises the question of the delay in calling the doctor. Witness after witness testified to Lacoste's hatred of the medical faculty and to his preference for dosing himself. He declared his faith in a local vet.

On (3), the bulk of the evidence against Lacoste's having the suggested afflictions came simply from witnesses who had not heard of them. There was, on the contrary, quite a number of witnesses to declare that Lacoste did suffer from a skin disease, and that he was in the habit of using quack remedies, the stronger the better. It was also testified that Lacoste was in the habit of prescribing his remedies for other people. A witness declared that a woman to whom Lacoste had given medicine for an indisposition had become crippled, and still was crippled.

With regard to (4), the Mayor merely repeated the evidence given in his first statement, but the cure', who also saw the deed assigning an annuity to Meilhan, said that it was not in Mme Lacoste's writing, and that it was signed with the unusual "Euphemie." This last witness added that Mme Lacoste's reputation was irreproachable, and that her relations with her husband were happy.

Evidence from a business-man in Tarbes showed that Mme Lacoste's handling of her fortune was careful to a degree, her expenditure being well within her income. This witness also proved that the Fourcades' evidence of Euphemie's misbehaviour could have been dictated from spite. Fourcade had been found out in what looked like a swindle over money which he owed to the Lacoste estate.

The court then went more deeply into the medico-legal evidence. It were tedious to follow the course of this long argument. After a lengthy dissertation on the progress of an acute indigestion and the effects of a strangulated hernia M. Devergie said that, as the poison existed in the body, from the symptoms shown in the illness it could be assumed that death had resulted from arsenic. The duration of the illness was in accord with the amount of arsenic found.

M. Flandin agreed with this, but M. Pelouze abstained from expressing an opinion. He, however, rather gave the show away, by saying that if he was a doctor he would take care to forbid any arsenical preparations. "These preparations," he said moodily, "can introduce a melancholy obscurity into the investigations of criminal justice."

Some sense was brought into the discussion by Dr Molas, of Auch. He put forward the then accepted idea of the accumulation of arsenic taken in small doses, and the power of this accumulation, on the least accident, of determining death.

This was rather like chucking a monkey-wrench into the cerebration machinery of the Paris experts. They admitted that the absorption and elimination of arsenic varied with the individual, and generally handed the case over to the defence. M. Devergie was the only one who stuck out, but only partially even then. "I persist in believing," he said, "that M. Lacoste succumbed to poisoning by arsenic; but I use the word 'poisoning' only from the point of view of science: arsenic killed him."

VII

The speech of the Procureur du Roi was another resume of the acte d'accusation, with consideration of that part of the evidence which suited him best.

This was followed by the speech of Maitre Canteloup in defence of Meilhan. The speech was a good effort which demonstrated that, whatever rumour might accuse the schoolmaster of, there were plenty of people of standing who had found him upright and free from stain through a long life. It reproached the accusation with jugglery over dates and so forth in support of its case, and confidently predicted the acquittal of Meilhan.

Then followed the speech of Maitre Alem-Rousseau on behalf of the Veuve Lacoste. Among other things the advocate brought forward the fact that Euphemie was not so poorly born as the prosecution had made out, but that she had every chance of inheriting some 20,000 francs from her parents. It was notorious that when Henri Lacoste first broached the subject of marriage with Euphemie he was not so rich as he afterwards became, but, in fact, believed he had lost the inheritance from his brother Philibert, this last having made a will in favour of a young man of whom popular rumour made him the father. This was in 1839. The marriage was celebrated in May of 1841. Henri Lacoste, it is true, had hidden his intentions, but when news of the marriage reached the ears of brother Philibert that brother was so delighted that he destroyed the will which disinherited Henri. It was thus right to say that Euphemie became the benefactor of her husband. Where was the speculative marriage on the part of Euphemie that the prosecution talked about?

Maitre Alem-Rousseau made short work of the medico-legal evidence (he had little bother with the facts of the illness). Poison was found in the body. The question was, how had it got there? Was it quite certain that arsenic could not get into the human body save by ingestion, that it could not exist in the human body normally? The science of the day said no, he knew, but the science of yesterday had said yes. Who knew what the science of to-morrow would say?

The advocate made use of the evidence of a witness whose testimony I have failed to find in the accounts of the trial. This witness spoke of Lacoste's having asked, in Bordeaux, for a certain liquor of "Saint-Louis," a liquor which Mme Lacoste took to be an anisette. "No," said Lacoste, "women don't take it." Maitre Alem-Rousseau had tried to discover what this liquor of Saint-Louis was. During the trial he had come upon the fact that the arsenical preparation known as Fowler's solution had been administered for the first time in the hospital of Saint-Louis, in Paris. He showed an issue of the Hospital Gazette in which the advertisement could be read: "Solution de Fowler telle qu'on l'administre a SAINT-LOUIS!" The jury could make what they liked of that fact.

The advocate now produced documents to prove that the marriage of Euphemie with her grand-uncle had not been so much to her advantage, but had been--it must have been--a marriage of affection. At the time when the marriage was arranged, he proved, Lacoste had no more than 35,000 francs to his name. Euphemie had 15,000 francs on her marriage and the hope of 20,000 francs more. The pretence of the prosecution, that her contentment with the abject duties which she had to perform in the house was dictated by interest, fell to the ground with the preliminary assumption that she had married for her husband's money.

Maitre Alem, defending the widow's gayish conduct after her husband's death, declared it to be natural enough. It had been shown to be innocent. He trounced the Press for helping to exaggerate the rumours which envy of Mme Lacoste's good fortune had created. He asked the jury to acquit Mme Lacoste.

The Procureur du Roi had another say. It was again an attempt to destroy the 'system' of the defence, but by making a mystery of the fact that the Lacoste-Verges marriage had not taken place in a church he gave the wily Maitre Alem an opportunity for following him.

The summing-up of the President on the third day of the trial was, it is said, a model of clarity and impartiality. The jury returned on all the points put to them a verdict of "Not guilty" for both the accused.

VIII

Another verdict may now seem to have been hardly possible. The accusation was built up on the jealousy of neighbours, on chance circumstances, on testimonies founded on petty spite. But, combined with the medico-legal evidence, the weight of circumstance might easily have hoisted the accused in the balance.

It will be seen, then, how much on foot the case of the Veuve Lacoste was with that of the Veuve Boursier, twenty years before.

It is on the experience of cases such as these two that the technique of investigation into arsenical poison has been evolved. In the case of Veuve Boursier you find M. Orfila discovering oxide of arsenic where M. Barruel saw only grains of fat. Four years previous to the case of the Veuve Lacoste that same Orfila came into the trial of Mme Lafarge with the first use in medical jurisprudence of the Marsh test, and based on the experiment a cocksure opinion which had much to do with the condemnation of that unfortunate woman. In the Lacoste trial you find the Parisian experts giving an opinion of no greater value than that of Orfila's in the Lafarge case, but find also an element of doubt introduced by the country practitioner, with his common sense on the then moot question of the accumulation, the absorption, and elimination of the drug.

Nowadays we are quite certain that our experts in medical jurisprudence know all there is to know about arsenical poisoning. What are the chances, however, in spite of our apparently well-founded faith, that some bristle-headed local chemist with a fighting chin will not spring up at an arsenic-poisoning trial and, with new facts about the substance, blow to pieces the cocksure evidence of the leading expert in pathology? It may seem impossible that such a thing can ever happen again--a mistake regarding the action of arsenic on the human body. But when we discover it becoming a commonplace of science that one human may be poisoned by an everyday substance which thousands of his fellows eat with enjoyment as well as impunity--a substance, for instance, as everyday as porridge--who will dare say even now that the last word has been said and written of arsenic?

But that, as the late George Moore so doted on saying, is quelconque. M. Orfila, sure about the grocer of the Rue de la Paix, was defeated by M. Barruel. M. Orfila, sure about the death of Charles Lafarge, is declared by to-day's experts in criminal jurisprudence and pathology to have been talking through his hat. According to the present experts, says "Philip Curtin," Lafarge was not poisoned at all, but died a natural death. Because of M. Devergie it was for the Veuve Lacoste as much 'touch and go' as it was for the Veuve Boursier twenty years before. Well might Marie-Fortunee Lafarge, hearing in prison of the verdict in the Lacoste trial, say, "Ma condamnation a sauve Madame Lacoste!"

In all this there's a moral lesson somewhere, but I'm blessed if I can put my finger on it.

INDEX

Abbot, George, Archbishop of Canterbury Alem-Rousseau, Maitre; on arsenic Amos (Great Oyer of Poisoning) Ansell, Mary Aqua fortis--see Poisons Armstrong, poisoner Arsenic--see Poisons Artois, Comte d'--see Charles X Aumale, Duc d'

Bacon, Sir Francis Balfour, Rev. James Ballet, Auguste Barruel, Dr. Barry, Philip Beaufroy Berry, Duchesse de Bidard, Professor; evidence against Helene Jegado Black, Mrs (Armagh) Blandy, Mary Bordeaux, Duc de Bordot, Dr. Borgia, Cesare Borgia, Lucretia Borgia, Rodrigo, Pope Alexander VI Borrow, George Boubee, Dr. Boudin, Dr. Bourbon, Louis-Henri-Joseph, Duc de, afterwards Prince de Conde Bourbon, Louise-Marie-Therese-Mathilde d'Orleans, Duchesse de Boursier, Veuve; case compared with Veuve Lacoste's Bouton, Dr. Briant, Abbe Brock, Alan Broe, M. de, Avocat-General Brownrigg, Elizabeth Bruce, Rev. Robert Burke and Hare Burning at the stake

Canteloup, Maitre Cantharides--see Poisons Carew, Edith Mary Carr, Robert Cassagnol, M., Procureur du Roi, Auch Castaing, poisoner Cecil, Robert, Lord Salisbury Chabannes de la Palice, Marquise de Charles X, King of France; flight from France Cleopatra Coke, Sir Edward, Lord Chief Justice Conde, Louis-Henri-Joseph, Prince de--see Bourbon, Duc de Conde, Louis-Joseph, Prince de Cotton, Mary Ann Couture, Maitre; speech in defence of Mme Boursier Cream, Neill "Curtin, Philip"

Dawes, James, made Baron de Flassans Dawes, Sophie, Devergie, M., chemist Diamond powder--see Poisons Diblanc, Marguerite Dilnot, George Donnoderie, M., Assize President, Auch Dorange, Maitre; defence of Helene Jegado Dubois, Dr, his account of the Prince de Conde's death Dunnipace, Laird of--see Livingstone, John Dyer, Amelia

"Egalite"--see Orleans, Louis-Philippe Elwes, Sir Gervase Enghien, Duc d' Essex, Countess of--see Howard, Frances Essex, Robert Devereux, third Earl of

Farnese, Julia Feucheres, Adrien-Victor, Baron de; marriage with Sophie Dawes; separation Feucheres, Baronne de--see Dawes, Sophie Flanagan, Mrs. poisoner Flandin, M., chemist Flassans, Baronde--see Dawes, James Fly-papers, for arsenic Forman, Dr "Fowler's solution" Franklin, apothecary

Gardy, Dr Gendrin, Dr Gibbon, Edward Gowrie mystery Gribble, Leonard R. Gunness, Belle

Hardouin, M., Assize President, Seine Harris, Miss Henry, Prince of Wales, son of James VI and I Higgins, Mrs, poisoner Hogarth, William Holroyd, Susannah, poisoner Howard family Howard, Frances, Countess of Essex, Countess of Somerset; early marriage; attracted to Robert Carr; begs Essex to agree to annul marriage; administers poison to husband; annulment petition presented; nullity suit succeeds; enmity to Overbury inexplicable; arrest and trial; death; portrait Howard, Thomas, Earl of Suffolk

Jack the Ripper Jael James VI and I, cruelty and inclemency of; double dealing of; share in Overbury's murder Jegado, Helene Jesse, Tennyson Jones, Inigo Judith

Kent, Edward Augustus, Duke of Kincaid, John, Laird of Warriston Kipling, Rudyard Kostolo (the Boursier case)

Lacenaire, murderer and robber, his verses against King Louis- Philippe Lacoste, Henri Lacoste, Veuve Lacroix, Abbe Pelier de, his evidence re death of Prince de Conde refused Lafarge, Marie-Fortunee Lambot, aide-de-camp to last Prince de Conde Lapis costitus--see Poisons Lavaillaut, Mme Lecomte, valet to last Prince de Conde Lesieur, chemist Lidange, chemist Linden, Mme van der Livingstone, or Kincaid, Jean Livingstone, John, of Dunipace Locusta Logan, Guy Lombroso, Cesare Loubel, apothecary

MACE, PERROTTE (Jegado victim) "Maiden," the Mainwaring, Sir Arthur Malcolm, Sarah; portraits of Malgutti, Professor, his evidence re arsenic in Jegado trial Manoury, valet to last Prince de Conde "Marsh technique," arsenic Maybrick, Mrs, poisoner Mayerne, Sir Theodore Meilhan, Joseph Mercury--see Poisons Messalina Moinet, Paul Molas, Dr, arsenic theory Monson, Sir Thomas Montagu, Violette Murdo, Janet 'Mute of malice,'

Northampton, Henry Howard, Earl of Norwood, Mary

O'Donnell, Elliot Orfila, Professor; change of opinions re arsenic; intervention in Lafarge case Orleans, Louis-Philippe, Duc d', (King of the French); bourgeois traits of; elected King Orleans, Louis-Philippe ("Egalite"), Duc d' Orleans, Louise-Marie-Therese-Mathilde d'--see Bourbon, Louise- Marie-Therese-Mathilde d'Orleans, Duchesse de Overbury, Sir Thomas

Parry, Judge A. E. Partra, Dr Pasquier, M. Paul III, Pope Pearcy, Mrs, murderess Pearson, Sarah Pelouze, chemist Perrin, Maitre Theo. Phosphorus--see Poisons Piddington, Rev. Mr. Pinault, Dr. of Rennes Pitcairn's trials Pitois, Dr. his estimate of character of Helene Jegado Poisons: aqua fortis; arsenic (from fly-papers),(white),(from a vermicide); cantharides; diamond powder; great spiders; lapis costitus; mercury (metallic),(corrosive sublimate); phosphorus; porridge; "rosalgar"; strychnine Poisons, reasons murderesses are inclined to use Pons, chemist Porridge, poisoning--see Poisons Porta, Guglielmo della Pritchard, Dr, poisoner

Rachel, MME Rais, Gilles de Rochester, Viscount--see Carr, Robert Rohan, the Princes de, their lawsuit v. Sophie Dawes "Rosalgar"--see Poisons Roughead, William Row, breaking on--see Wheel Rully, Comtesse de Rumigny, M. de, aide-de-camp to Louis-Philippe

Sabatini, Rafael Saint-Louis, Liquor of--see "Fowler's solution Sarrazin, Rosalie (Jegado victim) Sarzeau, Dr, his evidence re arsenic in Jegado case Seddon, poisoner Smith ("brides in the bath") Somerset, Countess of--see Howard, Frances Somerset, Earl of--see Carr, Robert Spara, Hieronyma Spiders, great--see Poisons Strychnine--see Poisons Suffolk, Countess of Suffolk, Earl of--see Howard, Thomas

Tessier, Rose (Jegado victim) Toffana, poisoner Turner, Anne; as beauty specialist; her lover; relations with Countess of Essex; a spy for Northampton (?); causes poisoned food to be carried to Overbury in the Tower; arrest; trial; condemnation and execution Turner, Dr George

Vigoureux, La Voisin, La

Wade, Sir Willlam Wainewright, poisoner Walpole, Horace Warriston, Lady--see Livingstone, Jean Webster, Kate Weir, Robert Weissmann-Bessarabo, Mme Weissmann-Bessarabo, Paule Jacques Weldon, Antony Wheel,Breaking on the Winchilsea, Earl of

Zwanziger, Anna

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Bles, 1934.]

[Footnote 2: A stanza in one ballad runs:]

[Footnote 3: "And haifing enterit within the faid chalmer, perfaving the faid vmqle Johnne to be walknit out of his fleip, be thair dyn, and to preife ouer his bed ftok, the faid Robert cam than rynnand to him, and maift crewallie, with thair faldit neiffis gaif him ane deidlie and crewall straik on the vane-organe, quhairwith he dang the faid vmqle Johnne to the grund, out-ouer his bed; and thaireftir, crewallie ftrak him on bellie with his feit; quhairvpoun he gaif ane grit cry: And the faid Robert, feiring the cry fould haif bene hard, he thaireftir, maift tyrannouflie and barbarouflie, with his hand, grippit him be the thrott or waifen, quhilk he held faft ane lang tyme quhill he wirreit him; during the quhilk tyme, the faid Johnne Kincaid lay ftruggilling and fechting in the panes of daith vnder him. And fa, the faid vmqle Johnne was crewallie murdreit and flaine be the faid Robert."]

[Footnote 4: Men convicted of certain crimes were also subject to the same form of execution adulterating and uttering base coins (Alan Napier, cutler in Glasgow, was strangled and burned at the stake in December 1602) sorcery, witchcraft, incantation, poisoning (Bailie Paterson suffered a like fate in December 1607). For bestiality John Jack was strangled on the Castle Hill (September 1605), and the innocent animal participator in his crime burned with him.]

[Footnote 5: The Memorial is fully entitled: A Worthy and Notable Memorial of the Great Work of Mercy which God wrought in the Conversion of Jean Livingstone Lady Warristoun, who was apprehended for the Vile and Horrible Murder of her own Husband, John Kincaid, committed on Tuesday, July 1, 1600, for which she was execute on Saturday following; Containing an Account of her Obstinacy, Earnest Repentance, and her Turning to God; of the Odd Speeches she used during her Imprisonment; of her Great and Marvellous Constancy; and of her Behaviour and Manner of Death: Observed by One who was both a Seer and Hearer of what was spoken.]