report, the lieutenant had no right to institute a search in Auquier's house; that the inquiry made showed the whole story of the treasure to be founded on an illusion; there was really no corpus delicti established; and that, without that, the question could never be legally ordered. Auquier, too, could prove an alibi: the day on which Mirabel pretended to have given him the treasure, he was away at Pertuis, eight miles from Marseilles.

The counsel for Mirabel urges (among other things), that the facts of the process are made out by witnesses, who prove the crime and the corpus delicti; that the court must recognize the simplicity and easiness of the peasant, who has been a victim to the address, the dexterity, and the artifices of the accused; and moreover that the return of the dead and the appearance of spirits are evidenced by Scripture and sacred writings, and allowed by the faculty of theology at Paris. When the advocates had concluded, the court at Aix called for more testimony: the man Bernard who had been present at Mirabel's digging, is summoned and examined. He deposes that he dug with Mirabel, in the presence of his mistress, the farm-woman of Paret; but that he found nothing, saw no linen, and heard no tinkling; that another day, Mirabel told him he had found

several pieces of gold, but that he had never shown nor indicated a single one, nor did he o his mistress make any inquiries upon the subject finally, that Mirabel never said to him that he had run the risk of being assassinated, although he then slept in the same room with him. This evidence, strangely unsought until this stage of the proceedings, leads to the truth. Auquier himself is listened to, and reiterates his offer of proof, that on the 6th of September, the pretended day of the delivery of the treasure, he was at Pertuis, eight miles off. Two new witnesses are brought forward; the first only deposes that Mirabel frequented Auquier. The second, named Peter Caillot, swears that a certain Barthelmy, with whom Mirabel lodged, and who had a control over him, had solicited him, Caillot, to testify that Auquier told him he had delivered Mirabel's specie to the captain of a large vessel. This evidence alone laid bare the whole iniquity. Auquier establishes his alibi by undoubted proof.

The affair is now looked on as including the committal of a very serious crime; and the case is adjourned for the presence of the attorneygeneral. Many more witnesses are examined. Auquier's justification is complete; Mirabel's guilt is manifest.

The attorney-general causes Mirabel to be arrested; he is examined, and protests that all he has said in his narrative is true.

Stephen Barthelmy, his instigator, is also arrested and examined. He confesses that he defrayed Mirabel's expenses during the proceedings, but denies having proposed to any witness, to say that Auquier had owned that he had delivered gold to the captain of a vessel.

Three new experts called in, unanimously declare that the handwriting of the note for twenty thousand livres is not that of Auquier.

At the requisition of the attorney-general, the court gives a judgment on the 18th of February, 1729. Auquier is discharged; Mirabel is condemned to be sent to the galleys for life, and to be previously put to the question.

Mirabel, under torture, declares that Stephen Barthelmy, the avowed enemy of Auquier, had induced him to make his accusation, after having given him the note for twenty thousand livres. It was Barthelmy also who pointed out the witnesses he should suborn.

Upon this, as it should have done without it, the court goes into further investigation, and Barthelmy is convicted. He is condemned to the galleys for life; and two of Mirabel's witnesses, a man and woman, Gaspard Deleueil and Frances

Tourniere, who gave false evidence in his favour, are sentenced to be publicly hung up by the armpits, as guilty of perjury in open court.

Such was this found and lost. It affords a curious illustration of the working of public justice in France more than a hundred years ago, and a memorable example of how dangerous, in all its bearings, was the iniquitous system of torture, as a discoverer of truth. In this instance, the penal lieutenant, apparently for no other reason than to save himself the trouble of examining witnesses, had chosen the readier and more cruel means; and but for the interference, of a superior tribunal, would, to the danger of limb or life, have racked a perfectly innocent man. The superior court, also, in its turn, employs the question, though clearly unnecessarily, for the truth is made sufficiently manifest by the witnesses' evidence, irrespective of the torture altogether.

case of an imaginary sum

MURDERS IN INNS OF COURT.

THE LAUNDRESS KILLED BY HER MASTER IN ESSEX-COURT, TEMPLE.-Constantine Macgennis, Esq., was tried at the Old Bailey in April, 1724, for the murder of Frances the wife of Richard Williams, which murder he had committed on the previous 15th of February. The following evidence sufficiently tells the tale :—

Ann Brampton deposed that on Saturday morning (the day in question), about half-past six o'clock, she was looking out of a window up one pair of stairs, in Essex-court, and saw the prisoner drag Mrs. Williams along the passage. Her mouth and his hand were bloody, and as soon as he had got her out of the passage he made several pushes at her with his sword, and then flung her down on the stones and said she was a witch, and he would burn her. She shrieked a little, but her voice was very low.