按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
％ VI
The experts responsible for the analysis 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 arsenic 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 arsenic。
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
178
… Page 179…
SHE STANDS ACCUSED
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：
179
… Page 180…
SHE STANDS ACCUSED
（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
180
… Page 181…
SHE STANDS ACCUSED
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 argu