.%.

^>.

f^.W^

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-S)

v..

1.0

I.I

S lis 12.0

IL25 ■ 1.4

1.6

%'''^

^>.

"c^

^> ^

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

V r'rSTER.N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

■^

».

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHIVI/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes tachniquM et bibliographiquas

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I ] Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagia

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaur^ et/cu peilicul^e

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes gAographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que blaue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reli4 avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La re liure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distorsion !• long de la marge int^rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas M filmies.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires supplimentaires;

L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la m^thode normale de fllmage
sont indiquAs ci-dessous.

|~~| Coloured pages/

Pages da couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagies

Pages restored and/oi

Pages restaurAes et/ou pelliculdes

Pages discoloured, stained or foxe<
Pages ddcoior^es, tacheties ou piquees

Pages detached/
Pages ditach^es

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of prin

Quality inigale de I'impression

Includes supplementary materia
Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

pn Pages damaged/

I I Pages restored and/or laminated/

r~l Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/

I I Pages detached/

r~7] Showthrough/

j~n Quality of print varies/

I I Includes supplementary material/

I I Only edition available/

□ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une peiure,
etc., cnt 6t6 fiimiies i nouveau de facon a
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/
Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous.
10X 14X 18X 22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Library of the Public
Archives of Canada

L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grflce A la
g6n*rositA de:

La bibiiothdque des Archives
publiques du Canada

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated Impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated Impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Les Images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetA de I'exemplairo flimd, et on
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
fllmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimte sont filmfo en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une emprelnte
d'Impresslon ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous ies autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'Impresslon ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidrA page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la
dernlAre Image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbols V signifie "FIN".

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre
fllm6s d des taux de reduction diffirents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul cliche, 11 est film6 d partir
de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mithode.

■

'*wim

' "^ ^*j

-^r-.

•n'- •,'.

1 .<> '*'

3<wi. "

'i!"» ">.*\ ''.

hS'Z't.

.■»*-''-.\.ii^''2^*'/ "I..**.

(JP^

mn'-M

&Ah

.■*i.«^^]

' ii . >A

fe'.'r

ltO''\-

'^»*

k •if

■U,

4vW.

■i ij

.^'

• ^j»*'

'rr t^iWf

'JM

'%.

i*-

y "^-J-

'f- ^*

tS ':n ^-^'^

1*^:

£' r<'

ifJV'

l^4;1:!?^s:^^w'^,.?#^?^'.■iii

j*t* 1*

^A'^

" ^^

f%m

'^ >

-^^ s

L>.li

JiL

ife

B4,f5®^

^•^Ly.

T^m.

■^.>'lt^^v-■^■^*^

TRIAL

I I

JOSEPH BERUBE AND CESAREE THERIAULT,

)

HIS WIFE.

•h

CONVICTED or HAVING MURDERED BY POISON

SOPHIE TALBOT, THE FIRST WIFE OF B£RUB£,

AT THE

CRIMINAL SITTINGS OF THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,

CRO WIV SIDE,

Held at Kamouraska, L. C, in November, 1852, before Mr. Justice

Panet ; together with comments upon the Law

and the Facts of the case.

iELfEVRE AND ANGERS,

LAW-REPORTEBS.

QUEBEC :
PRINTED AT THE CANADA GAZETTE OFFICE,

1853.

(

COL'RT Of; WEEN'S BKNCM, | kAMOURASKA.
Present : Panet, Juslice.

C lllX.IIVA,

1862., ]

vs.

I'roN Injuctwiont fok Mdkoeh »y poisonijnu

November Term 1852.

HpIiI: — TIkiI tlu; dpsrription Riven
by a peisori of liis siid'ciiiins, wliilr.
liil)()iiriiiL; uiidor dist'use and in pain, is
not deemed hearsay evideiu'e, and may
be aduiitted us ori;{inal evidence.

'J'he piisoner, Cesaien 'J'heriault, was
arrested by the constal)le Chabot, and
while in his custody and in his iiouse,
Gauvreaii, a Maii;istrate, came in, and
said in ner presence, " She had better
lurnOu!en's evidence," to which Cha-
bot answered, " There are some preli-
minary proceedings to be adopted
before ;"

Held : — That confessions made sub-
sequently, on the same day, by the ])ri-
soner, to Chabot, to hi* wile, and to
another constable, were not admissible
in evidence, inasmuch as the prisoner
was J^n the custody of these people,
when Gauvreau sjioke to her, and in-
asmuch as she mii;ht be un^ier the
influence of the hope held out to her by
the said (Jauvreau ;

That confessions made the next day
to Chabot, while ^oiiig to jirison, were
not for the same reasons, admissible
ill evidence ;

That a confession made the same
day that Gauvreau spoke to the pri-
soner, to a Physician, havinjr no au-
thority over the prisoner, and without
the presence of the Peace Officer, is
admissible in evidence ;

That a Child, whatever his ai;e may
be, can be examined as a witness,
if he can distinguish between good ami
evil.

Jn^o : — Que la description qu'um;
persoruK! malade liiil d(> ses soufFrances
peut elre lapporlee coiiune uiie preuve
oriifinclie, ct nc doilpas otre considereu
comme un oui-dire.

La prisonuiore Cesarce Theriault,
avait ete arretee par le constable Cha-
bot, et tandis qu'elle etait sous sagarde et
en sademeure, Gauvreau, un ^^af;istrat,
entra et dit en sa presence : " Elle lerait
mieux <le se rendre temoin de la Reine,"
li (pioi Chabot rtspondit : " U y a des
forinalites pv61iminaires ii suivre d'a-
bord ;"

.Tuge :— Que les aveux faits le m&me
jour par la prisoiiniere a Chabot, a sa
femme et li un autre constable, nopou-
vaient pas otre admis coirirne preuve,
vu que la prisonniure etait sous la
jjarde de ces personnes, quand Gauvreau
lui adressa la ])arole, et vu (pi'elle pou-
vait encore elre sousl'intluence de I'es-
poir que Gauvreau lui avait fuit entre-
voir ;

Quedesaveux faits le jour suivant
a Chabot, iorsqu'on la conduisait eu
lirison, ne pouvaient Stre admis eii
preuve pour les memes raisons ;

Que les aveux I'aits par la prisonniere,
le mC'ine jour que Gauvreau lui avait
parle, dun Medecin (|ui n'avait sur elle
aucune autoritc, et hors de la presence
des Officiers de Paix, jjouvaient etre
prouv6s ;

Qu'un Enfant quelque soit son lige,
peut fetre examine comme temoin, s'il
peut distinguer entre lebien et lemal.

At the sittings of the Court of Queen's Benc'i, Crown side,

held at Kamouraska, in November 1853, one .Joseph T3erube

j^nd Ccsaroc Theriault, his wife, were tried upon a charge of
1*

mnrder by poisoning, committedupon the person of one Sophie
Talbot, the first wile of Berube. The poisons alleged to
have been administered Avere phosphorus and arsenious acid
or white arsenic. The crime was stated to have been perpe-
trated (hiring liie month of October IH51 : Sophie Talbot
died during the night of Wednesday, tlie 2nth Octol^er, 1851,
after five days illness.

.Foseph Bern be was a fanner, aged about 45, who had
settled formerly in the ))arish of I'Isle Verte, in the fourth
Concession, and about 1849 had removed to the Township
of Viger, situaic in the rear of the said j)arish. His fainily
consisted of his wife, Sophie Talliot, to whom he iiad
been married for more than twelve years, and of three ehild-
rer. the eldest of whom was not more than eleven or twelve
years old. In his immediate neighbourhood, lived with her
father, Cesaree Tlieriault, a young woman of about 15 or 16
years of age, wiio soon became his pai amour, — and who
appears to have been the occasion of the crime attributed to
the prisoners.

At the time of Sophie Talbot's death, vague suspicions
attached to the prisoners, which suspicions were encreased
by the circumstance of their marriage which took place two
months afterwards, — until a Coroner's inquest, the examina-
tion of the body of the deceased, and the evidence adduced
by Beveral witnesses, led to the arrest of the prisoners on the
2nd day of April, 1852, and subsetjuently to their trial and
condemnation.

The following synopsis of the evidence adduced before

the jury will make known the circumstances of this heinous
crime.

ABSTRACT OF EVIDENCE :

Marceline Beaulieu : — Sophie Talbot is seized with sudden
illness on Saturday, 25th October, 1851, complains of unusual
pains in the stomach — vomits and makes repeated efforts to
vomit — next day same coinplainls — kept continually rising
from her bed and lying down again — complains of palpita-
tion of the heart and [)ains in her bowels — both prisoners
were then present — said in his presence that her husband had
sent for rum to warm her. Tuesday, witness sent for at the
request of Berube — Mrs. Berube said in presence of her
husband, that she had vomited blood the day before — that
between sunday and monday her husband had given her
some punch which did her no good- — that on monday, she had
vomited blood — complained of pains in her arms, loins and
bowels — and of rolifjucs — thick and clotted blood constantly
flowing from her mouth — continued reaching, with little or
no effect — complained of pains in her loins, in her sides and
in all her limbs — palpitation of the heart, &c. Wednesday,
same complaints, vomiting &c. — she became worse — was
sinking — at 11 P. M. Bei-ube came for witness, slating that
his wife was very ill and that she raved — asked for a feather
bed as his wife's bed was not comfortable — found her very
ill — she died at midnight. Berube visited Cesaree Thciiaull's
father's house very often — almost every evening and evr>ry
day, and at all hours of the day — for a year since witness lias
lived there. Cesaree Theriault went sometimes to Beiube,
bui not very often — Berube went oftener after the death of
his wife toTheriault's — went next day after the funeral.

Fabien Boule — was present for half an hour before Mrs.
Berube died — Berube toas not there — Berube went often to
Theriault's — no rats in the Township of Viger — new settle-
ment — Sophie Talbot healthy woman — no rats in 4th Range
either.

William Jarvis. — In September 1851, Berube wanted to
purchase arsenic at witness' store, at Green Island, for the

imrposo of poisoning rals — oflbrcd him Sinitii's Exlfrminalor
— rcplictl lliat was loo dcfir (price It*, bd.)

Mary Jane Jarvis. — About llie end oCiIk! ?<nmmer oi 1851,
and before Sophie Tall)ot's (h>alh, IJcrube asked for arserun
al her father'.s ,'<1ore, at Green Island, to |)oison nils — ollered
him Sujith's Exteriainator instead — lie deelineil it.

Genode Tlieriault, si.ster of llio lemale prisoncn- — earriecl
apple jjreserves in a yellow bowl lo Sophie Talbot on Friday
f.fternoon, day before her illness — Cesaree Theriaull gave
them to her while both were alone in their father's house —
they appearetl ni'wly made — were not cold nor hot — there
were no apple preserves in their house. Cesaree Theriaull
was washing at a brook, abou' an acre ant! a half from the
house — had a lire — she had apples there — when she returned
to the house she had the small bowl containing the preserves
— told me to give; theni to Sophie Talbot — told me to tell her
not to give any to her children — and not to cat of them
myself — delivered the preserves and the message — Sophie
Talbot ate of them in her presence, about one third, a little
utter sunset in the road, whither she came to meet Witness
Witness did not eat of them — on her return Cesaree The.
riault asked her if Sophie Ta/bot Iiad ealcu of Ihe preserves.
While washing at the brook, her sister, Cesaree Theriaull,
came to the house for the small bowl. (Court adjourned for
half an hour ) Witness continued — had forgotten to state
that she and her sister had tasted the preserves {tin. petit mor-
ceaii) — (.s7/6' hud stated the contrary ^('/brc. Ed.) — remc^mbered
this fact after leaving the Court — saw Berube on the day the
preserves were made by her sister — he jiassed near our
house for the ]iurpose of going lo iny brother (Michel
Tlieriault) — my sister was in the house — he came to the
brook when I was there with my sister — passed clos(^ to us,
hvt did not speak — does not know whither Ik; was going — it
was in the forenoon — he neither bowed to ns nor looked at /(s
— doi not know where her sister got the apjjies.

On iho previous Wednesday, asked her sister if BerubC! had
givc-n her ii suiiill box us slated by little Nareisse — answered
il was no/ true — it was her hmu^ AmabU; Ouellel, who had
sent her a siiiail box oH jk /tjtcnninls. 1 asked to see that little
box — saiil, I will show it you at another time — I did not ask
again — I nevir saw it — Passed a portion of th(! afternoon of
Sunday at Sophie Talljot's with hersisteraiid brothers — Cusa-
ret! did not return afterwards as far as witness knows. My
sister was arrested in the beginning of April, in Fabien
Houle's barn, where she had hid herself on .-eeing the eons-
labU'H. On the night of the death of Sophie Talbot, about
1 1 o'eloek, Berube cainc to our house to aseertain what
o'eloek it was. lie returned shortly after, stating thai he
was going for the priest for his wife.

Philomene Berube — In eonscquenee of some dirt having
fallen into the i)reserves, and as her father had ))ut hi^ hands
which w^ere dirty into them to take out the dirt which had
fallen, my mother said they were dirty, and they could eat
no more of them, upon which my father threw them away.
Did not know wliethcn' tlie dirt had iallen from her father's
pipe, or from the garret. 1 did not see the dirt. The bowl
was then in my father's hands, he had taken it out of my
mother's hands.

Cross examined.

To show illness was attributable to cold.

Pliilomenc Houle — \V<'dnesday, l)efore the dentil of Sophie

Tiilhol, Nareisse 'I'lieriaiill of tiic age of iil)oii1 six years U)'a\
me and (ienotle Tlieriaidl, ilial lieriil)e jiad given ii, small
red box lo Cesaree Therianll, and that lie tliouglit it was for
the [)nrpose of |)()is()iiiji<.;' Iiis mother, .Jidic Oueliet. Cesaree
'i'heriaiill eiMiie ii> (nir lioiise, and I asl<(Ml her what box was
thai ot w lileh her little l)i(ither Nareisse had s|)ol<en ; she said
she wotdd return and woultl leli me what it was. Sin- did

'■ t

,r^!.

return and iold me it was a small box of peppermints which
her beau Amable Ouellet had sent to her. Sometime after
this, during the same day, I saw the prisoner Berabe, and I
asked him what was the box which he had given to Cesaree
Theriault, He made no answer. Sometime after I met
him, and he look me aside, he told me tiol to speak of that
box to any one. The same day, Cesaree Theriault told me
she would shew me the box. She did not shew it to me.
She told me when I asked her lo shew it to me that she had
hidden it in the stamp of a tree.

Pierre Chabot, Bailiff^ — Had the female prisoner in custody
in his house, on the 3d April. — He did not threaten her in
any way — the prisoner made a confession to him. Mr. N.
Gituvreau, magistrate, had come to his (witness') house and
had said to Cesaree Theriault, that according to the proof
made before the Coroner she had better turn Queen's evi-
dence, {she could not be Queen'' s evidence., Ed.) witness then
said to Mr. Gauvreau, that in it is opinion that was not the
time to speak of that, and that certain formalities had to be
gone through first. Mr. Gauvreau went away and she made no
confession then. About an hour after I learned that she had
made admissions to my wife. I held out no promise or
threat to her and she made me a confession then.

{Confession ruled out on the ground thai she might have
been influenced by ivhat Mr. Gauvreau had said to her, he
being a person in authority, and the confession being made to
persons in whose rusfodi/ tlic prisoner was.)

Witness arrested die female prisoner in a barn, hi the
town'^hip of Viger, wi)ere after searching for about an hour,
they found her concpaled in a heap of liay ;— on our way
down she said that she had heard that her sister Genofte
had made a strong deposition against her before the Coro-
ner. She added : " // is a great nmf.^rtune to be taken

(

prisoner ; I did not knmo what I was doing ; he gave
" me to understand that there was no sin in ity I said
to her : " you ought to know that if you did any harm
" it was a sin."— She answered—" he gave me to un-
" derstand that he would procure me my pardon.'' (This was
f?aid before she saw Mr. Gauvreau. Ed.) On our way from
St. Andre to Kamouraska, on tlie sunday, while in the
voiture between my assistant and myself, she began to
cry ; upon asking her why she cried, she said to me—
" It is what 1 said about the little box that makes me unhappy:'
1 said to her : He told you then that it was poison that was in
it ? Is it true that you put some into the preserves ?—{The
answer of the prisoner is objected to as t)eing a continuation of
the admissions made after the expressions made use of by Mr.
Gauvreau ; ruled out on the ground that the influence of Mr.
Gauvreau's expressions might still subsist, and that the wit-
ness, {the bailiff Chabot,) being considered a person in
authority, was present when they were uttered by Mr. Gau-
vreau.)

Germain Talbot.— The brother of Sophie Talbot— lived as
a servant with Berube before and at the tnne of his sister's

death some days before her death she complained of head

ache — did not see her vomit — worked outside— The sunday
before she died, Bembe sent me for some rum to warm her —
I gave it io him saying : here is tht rum for ray sister who is
sick — He said : very well— I will prepare it. {Je vats faire
de quoi avec.) He had something in his hands, but J did not
see what it was. He prepared the rum, {fd qudque chose
avec) and gave it to my sister. — When my sister received the
preserves which had been brought to her by Genotie The-
riaull, she said to Berube in my presence—" It is very odd
" t)mt they should have sent me preserves in this way ; I did
not ask for any thing,"— upon which he said—" But do you
" think they would be wicked enough to put any thing in them
" that would do you harm .'

lii

ill ,

I have been threatened by Augxistin Tliurictult, tlie father
of the female prisoner, in the i)rescnce of Berube, a« fol-
lows : — lie came to the prisoner's barn where I was,
and I was going to the prisoner's liouse, were the latter
was. He (Augustin Theriault) said to me : " Is it true
" that it is you who let out {cvente) that ive had given some-
" thing to your sister to poison her ?" I told him no !—
that people susj)ected it on account of the preserves which
had been sent from his house, and that the people said that
it was I who had said so. He said to me : " I forbid you to
" speak of it because I will have you brought before the
" Criminal Court — uj)on that Berube said — speaking of me —
" loe must have him taken ?//>." Sometime after this I asked
Berube wliat was the meaning of wdiat he then said to me —
He said : "It means not to spread that report — as little as you
" can — if you do, look" out for yourself"

When the body of the deceascid had left the house, Cesaree
Theriault came to it, and Berube said to her — " Here are
" my children wlio are left alone, — will you talce care of
" them, while I go down to the funeral." — They then con-
versed together for sometime , but I did not hear what ihey
said — Cesaree Theriault then, remained in the house — I do
not know whether Cesaree Theriault came, to the house
during the illness of the deceased, but she came often to it
wiiile her body was still there.

Cross examined :

Has been iti the Ith range — never saw any rats there.
Ntireisse — llj.'gilimale child of Augustin Theriault and the
woniim .lulic OueJlet.

liiliMTogaled l)y the .Tudge :

Q. lluw old are yon ?

;V. 1 will l)(' six years old in the month of January.

Q. Do you know what an oalli is ?

A. I ilo not nndersland that. «

q. Have you learned your Catechism ?

A. No,— but I am going to learn it.

Q. Is there a God ?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know wliat it is to tell trulli ?

A. Yes.

Q. Where are people punished wlu) do not Icll the truth ?

A. In Hell.

Q. Are people likewise punished in this world ?

A. Yes.

Q. What prayers have you learned ?

A. I do not understand that.

Q. Do you say your prayers sometimes ?

A. Yes, in the evening— before going to bed, and also in
the morning— 1 say a part by myself, a-id my mother repeats
the remainder to me.

Q. Is it a sin to tell a falsehood upon oath ?

A. Yes.

Q. Where will you be jmnished if you do not tell the
truth u]wn oath ?

A. In Hell, and I mighl also be punished in this world.

Ordered to be sw^orn and examined :

I know Berube and Cesaree Therianlt who is my sister—
Berube and my sister met together-I do not remember
where it was— It is a long time ago-I remember seeing
a small box—U was Bernl)e who bronght it and he gave it to

''l

■ I

:!■

if'*

i i

my sister. — I saw a little bit of it like that — (shewing the
points of his fingers,) I wanted to see the little box — C6saree
put it into the pocket of her dress. I told my sister Genofle
Theriault that I had seen Berube giving the small box and
1 said so in presence of Philomene Boule and a child of
Fabien Boule. — The box in question was given in our house.
There was no one but Cesaree and myself in the house when
Berube gave the little box. They spoke of Julie Ouellet,
and Julie Ouellet is my mother. — They wished to kill her —
I told this to my mother in company with Montr^aliste
(another child living in the same house) : they said they
wished to kill her by poison.

( 'ross examined :

He is asked how long it is since he knows that there
is a God — Answers — He has known it for five days. — I know
what a sin is. He who commits a sin goes to hell. — I have
not committed a sin, in doing what I have done just now.

Justine Talbot, wife of Elie Gagnon, went to see the
deceased on Wednesday, the day she died. — Fabien Boule
and wife and G(!rmaiii Talbol were present — Berube was
there also, but he went away in the course of the evening.
I was not there when she died — I went away because the
approach of death and the sufi'erings of the deceased terrified
me — I was then enceinte — I remained there about two or
three hours — The deceased was then in bed — She told me
she sutfered much ; she made me place my hand on her heart
that 1 might feel how her heart beat.

Solomee Morin, wife of Michel Theriault : — 1 went to see
Sophie Talbot the day she died — Fabien Boule's wife was
there, and two of Boul6's children — Berube was not there —
The deceased was very ill — we gave her tea whicii she
vomitted easily — also bread, but she cotdd not swalloiv it —
chewed it and threw it out.

G6noffe Th6riault in my presence asked Berub6 if it was
true that he had poisoned his wife as people said— He made
some answer, I think, but I did not hear vvhat he said. Upon
this he hung down his head. On this occasion G6noffe
Theriault said to him that Germain Talbot had said, in Beru-
be's father's house,that the preserves which Cesaree Theriault
had sent to the deceased had made her very sick, {lui avait
tombe sur le cmir,) Cesaree Theriault was then present dur-
ing the conversation and said nothing.

Julie Ouellet— the mother of the boy Narcisse confirmed
what llie boy had said in his evidence, viz : that he told her
that he had seen Joseph Berube give a small box to Cesaree
Theriault.

Lambert Ouellet— identifies the body.

Amable Ouellet.— Knows Sophie Talbot— died about All
Saint's day, last year— gave no box to the male prisoner
about that time, and sent no box to Cesarie Theriault— g^ve
no peppermints to Berubd for Cesaree Th^riaidt, and never
sent any to Cesaree Theriaidt— knew Cesaree Theriault and
had spoken to her about it— h-dd asked her in marriage about
two months before the death of Sophie Talbot. He was
known to be the cavalier of Cesaree Theriault, and knows
no other person who bears his name.

Cross examined :

It was generally said {il passe) that there were rats in the
4th range where 1 lived for a long time.

Berube, to my knowledge, lived on good terms with his
late vvife.

Re-examined :

1 gave up courting Cesaree Theriault about fifteen day?
before the death of Sophie Talbot.

I 'I

I'i s

I'I
If I

|>- it

Ed. Peltier. — Knows lliat there .vas »u intimacy between
Beriibe and Cesaree Theriault ; abont three years and a hall'
ago Berube and 1 lodged in the house of Augustin Theriaull,
about the month of March, at that |)crio(l, I had my bed on a
pailUisse on the floor along with Ht'riil)o. lie got np and J
saw him lay himself across Cesarec Tlieriault's bed. I men-
tioned this to others — 1 s})oi4e of it to her latiier — alter this
the two prisoners continued to see each otiier often.

Cross examined :

When Berube went to Cesaree 'riieriaull's bed 1 tliink
that her sister Gt-noiH; was in bed witl* her.

Felicite Peltier. — Lived in the '1th range in the house
which Berube had in that place from the ISth .lune to har-
vest-time last year — about three weeks before her death the
deceased was sick at the 4th range to which she had gone
down — said she had bowel complaint and was sick at the
stomach — it nearly overcame her and she vomited often
with forced reaching — the vomiting lasted about two days.
I was in the house when she took sick — It was, as far as I
can recollect about St. Michel's day (29th September) the
same day on which she came down from the township —
she was seized in the evening, and on tlie following day she
was worse, [and vomited. Next day, or the day after,
her husband came to see her — he arrived in the evcnina: and
left the following morning — she got I)et1er, and returned to
tlie township — she supposed it was cold which she had
caught.

Cross examined :

Gave her rum and hot water during this sicikjiess — it aid
her good.

There arc a great many rats in the 4th range.

THE FOLLOWING 18 THE EVIDENCE OF THE MEDICAL MEN :

Charles Timot' 'i Dubi', ol'Trois Pistoles, Physician : — In
the month of April of last year, (l8ol,) I Avas called upon
by the Coroner to examine the body ol" a uoman, said to l)e
Sophie Talbot, the wile of Joseph Bernbe. I was assisted
by Dr. Desjardhis. — 1 myself opened the collin in a room of
the old Presbytery of L'lsle-Verte, in the prcseiu'e of t Ik^
Coroner, of the jury, and of Ur, Uesjardins. Ilavin<;
opened the collin, the corpse was laid upon the cover of the
coilin, the Coroner then asked if any body could rccognix/^
the deceased, uj)on which Mrs. Fal)ien lioule came forward
and said she recognized her by a sear she had iijxni the
cheek, axid Dr. Desjardins slatetl as much. I obscirved
mys(df Inat there was a scar upon one of the cheeks of the
deceased. The corpse having been identified, we procec^ded
to the examination.

(

Upon opening the thorax and the upper part of the
abdomen, I immediately ])erceived a very strong smell of
garlic. To become certain that this smell proceeded from
the stomach, I immediately opened it, and the same smell of
garlic then became stronger. I observed upon dilFercnt parts
of the stomach, particularly towards the cardiacal part, n(>ar
the wind pipe, some red spots which indicated that inllama-
tion had taken place. In the middle of some of these spots,
there were small white ones. Some of these spots were
erosions or burns of the mucous membrane of the stomach.
The small intestines also denoted by their interior that there
had been inflammation. The colon, the first of the large in-
testines, was in about its natural state, but the u])p(^r part of
the rectum, the last large intestine, was ulcerated and almost
entirely out of order. The liver was in about its ordinary
state. The biliary vessiclc was in its natural state. The
lungs were filled with blood and had black spots on them.
The heart was in its natural state.

it;

I I 1

■ 1

III

The strong smell of garlic indicates the presence of pho»-
phorus, which is a deleterious substance and a very active
poison. It is the principal ingredient in Smithes Exterminator^
This composition is veiy hurtful and very dangerous to
human life, very little is required to poison a person. The
small white specks, seen in the middle of the spots, indicate
the presence of arsenic

From the examination alone of the body, apart from the
fiymptoms of the disease described by the witnesses, I am
of opinion that the deceased Sophie Talbot died of a disease
which took its origin from a cause foreign to the animal
organisation, that is to say, that some foreign substance
must have produced it, and that substance must have been
something corrosive or irritating. To the best of my know-
ledge and according to my observation I believe that phos-
phorus and arsenic were taken.

I did not remark upon the deceased any trace of any pre.
existing organic disease, except the traces of acute inflamma-
tion which I have mentioned.

I put into a vial a part of what I found in the interior of
the stomach : it was a slimy secretion deposited upon the
coat of the stomach. I took the vial home with me and
sealed it with my seal. I always kept it under lock and
key, and I have since brought it with me to Kamouraska.
Last thursday evening I opened the vial myself and gave it
to Dr. Jackson. He put half ol the contents into a crucible
and added a little rain water antl chloric acid. He placed
this over a lamp with spirits of wine, and heated it to the
boiling point, ^^'hich had the eliect of making the organic
matter coas^ulate. After this he filtered the contents throusrh
a filtering paper, so as to separate the organic matter. The
remains of what had been filtered were placed in another
crucible and put over the fire. A few minutes after Pr.

Jackson threw into it two small pieces of very bright and
very elean copper. After a few moments and when the
whole had commenced to boil, the pieces of copper became
of a lead colour. This lead colour indicated the presence of
arsenic. To convince ourselves that this lead colour was
not produced by the water or the chloric acid, we boiled
aiiulhor piece of copper in u mixture of water and cliloric
rcid, and the copper remained perfectly bright. For the
last tt.>! we "jsed the same water and the same acid that we
had used for the first operation. It was at night that this
was done. This test is known as the test oi' Reinsch, it is
one of the strongest ones to discover the presence of arsenic.

In consequence of the nature of pliosphorus and the long
time that had elapsed since the burial (5 months) it was im-
possible to ascertain the presence of phosphorus by any
chemical process. Phosphorus is a substance which dis-
appears. Arsenic is a metallic substance which can be
discovered a very longtime after the burial.

I found the stomach and the intestines empty.

I have heard the evidence of Marceline Beaulieu, wife of
FabienBoule, first witness examined in this matter. Vomiting
such as that described by this witness, as havi ng occurred
to the deceased, could have had the eflfect of rejecting all
the arsenic she might have taken. According to the symp-
toms described by this witness, the immediate cause of death
is inflammation of the stomach, and this inflammation must
have been caused by some substance foreign to the organi-
sation, among these symptoms some correspond to those of
poisoning caused by an irritating substance, and several of
the symptoms are those produced by poisoning from arsenic.

I saw the prisoner at Green Island the day after the
Coroner's inquest, the third of April last.
2

m \

Slio was at tlio linusc of one Clmbot, ;i Mnilill", F spoki' t(»
lipr in llio presence of Dr. Desjardins, ami we were alone
willi her. She lold ine sonu'lliing relalinu; 1o llie matter wliieli
is llie cause of this trial. I did not make any promise or
liireat to her. Dr. Desjardins did not speak to her at alJ.
This took phiee at abont two o'ehiek in tiie afternoon. Pro-
bably the prisoner did not know that I was a |)liysicif.n.
The only question I put to lier was this: " flow did this
"unhappy oeeurreneo take ))]aee ? " Mr. (iauvnuiu the
Magistrate was not then in the Ijouse. I am under tlu; im-
pression that he had seen the prisontn* before, bnt I have no
])ersonal knowledge of it.

{T/ie proof of the avowals thai the prisoner may have made
is objected to on the part of the defence^ hecavse if. is pretended
/hat those avowals were made iftvr the tvords spoken by the
Magistrate Gauvreau^ and ivhich are repeated, by the witness
Chabot. The objection is set aside by the judge^ npon the
ground^ that Dr. Diibe had no authority over the prisoner,
and that no person in author itii vxis then present.)

11'!

After I had said to her : " How did this unfortunate occur-
*' rence take place ? the prisoner said to me : Ilo gave me
" a small tin box covered with paper which was pasted over
" to keep the cover on. I o])ened it : it was nearly rose coloiu",
" as hard as tallow : I put some three tim(!S with the
" blade of a knife, into the preserves, and eacli time that I
" took it, it smoked."

I asked her if she had put much of it ; she told me that she
had only put a little : this was all she told me, and I did not
wish to know more. She cried a great deal.

The substance, of which the prisoner spoke tome, answers
to Smith'' s Exterminator, the surface of it is nearly of a rose
or flesh colour. The Exterminator is sold in boxes covered

with paprr whioli is pasted. Wlirn any of it is taken out, ti
light siiioltc rises iVorii il.

I'lxiiniiticil oil tlu' psni ol'ihc (Icrcncc :

I never analysed ^^hiUk\s Extirminator. Pliosphorus,
when exposed in llic dark, IxM^oines iiiiniin)ns, and when it
is a longliiiK^ closed up, it ae(|nire:s a reddish colour. I do
not know if earlli cimiains arsenic. There is phos[)horns in
the hnnian sy^ilem, not in its nnturid stale, but in the stale of
pliosphale uf lime. Tli(> (|uanlify of arsenic discovered by
the experinu'nt is not sullicient 1olaK(^ away life.

There arc diseases which very nearly appear to be caused
by poisoning. Gastritis api)ears very like poisoning, [ji
this disease there is vomiting, palpitation of the heart, but
not always colics. In these diseases you rarely, if ever,
meet with the indications I have pointed out as denoting
poisoning. The white spots, of which I have spoken, may
possibly be found in the stomach of a person who has died
without having been jioisoned. These spots are then of a
greasy substance ; but those which I found were too hard for
that. These white spots, when they are not arsenic, disap-
pear when submitted to the action of fire, but when they are
arsenic, hey evaporate and give out a smell of garlic.

I never opened the body of a person wIk) died of inflamma-
tion of the stomach. In the present instance I do not think
that the deceased was of a suiKciently strong temperament to
producer the traces of inflammation which I found. I did not
know the deceased, but from the examination I made of the
body, I could judge of her temperament. The traces of
inflammation which follow gastritis are not so distinct as those
I have mentioned. In gastritis the vascular system is dilated,
the mucous membrane is of a reddish colour, but there are
no spots and^erosions such as those which I remarl-cd, and

the oesophagus is less affected than the remainder.

]M)

ill

i> i

GaMritis or inflammation of tlu? >«lomacli may lie produced
by a sudden change of tenipcniturt, or by inioctiiig a cold
liquid into the stointich while in a sslate of perspiration.

J do not think that, supposing the deceased had eaten
garlic before her death, the smell of it couhl he discovered
five months after.

Among the symptoms described, there are some which are
peculiar to poisoning by arsenic, such as the contraction at the
upper part of the (esophagus, accompanied by burnings
which prevented the deceased from swallowing solid food.

Re-examined on the part »)f the prosecution.

Arsenic may easily enter into the composition of Smithes
Exterminator^ tog(;therwith phosphorus.

. Hospice Desjardins, of Isle Verte, Physician : — I was pre-
sent at the pod mortem examination of the body of iSophie
Talbot ; I knew her well during her lifetime, I had been her
medical attendant, and I knew her at once by her features
and also by a scar she carried upon one side of her fac(;. — This
witness corroborates every part of Dr. Dube's testimony. He
states as his opinion, founded upon the inspection of the body
of the deceased and the symptoms of the sickness such as
described by the witnesses, namely, Mareeline Beaulic i, —
that Sophie Talbot, died from a severe inflammation of the
stomach occasioned by the swallowing of an extraneous
irritating substance, w^hich must necessarily have belonged to
the class of poisons called corrosive poisons. The witness
identifies the renmins uf tlie deceased submitted to the
experiments, and corr()borate^ the confession made to Dr.
Dube. — He speaks of the white spots found on the stomach
of the deceased as being arsenic.

Alfred Jackson, of the City ot Quebec, Physician and Sur-
geon : — I am the lecturer on (Chemistry at the Quebec Medi-

i^ii

ral School, and have boon ro lor tho last four years. Since my
airlvnl hero Dr. Dnbr has placed in my hands a vial contain-
ing substances whir-h he slatiHl wore taken from the stomach
of the late Sophie Talbol, the (juantity was small, abont two
leaspoonful. This I divided into two equal parts, and sub-
mitted one to what is known as lleinseh's test : I introduced
the organic matters into a porcelain capsule, a vessel made
expressly for s'.ich experiments, and added purt! water and
hydrochloric acid : I boiled tho contents of the capsule for
abont twenty minutes, to coagulate and destroy t!ie organic
matters, then fdtered the whole by means of ordinary fdtering
paper. The liquid was again heated, and when near the
boiling point, two slips of copper with bright and polished sur-
face, wore introduced in it. I continued to boil the liquid, and
after some minutes perceived that the copper had changed
colour ; it assumed the colour of lead or of polished iron. The
process of boiling was continued for about twenty minutes^
the slips of copper were then taken out, washed in pure
water, and dried by means of filtering paper : they were
then examined, but as it was evening, and the succeeding
steps of the experiment are of a very dedicate nature, they
were put off until the following tiay.

The change of colour was indicative of the presence of a
metal in solution, and was such as might be produced by
the presence of arsenic ; but as there are other metals that
cause a similar change of colour, I took the means in ordi-
nary use to ascertain that in this instance it was duo to the
presence of arsenic. I introduced the slips of copper into a
reduction test-tube, and submitted them to the heat of a
spirit lamp. The heat soon disengaged the coating, which
had previously covered it, from the surface of the copper.

As this coating was very thin, the result of the experiment
was the production of a small quantity of a whitish sublimate
that adhered to the internal surface of the tube. I recognized

i '

I ■

' k ■-

•I

i|i'' 4

ill

in the deposit the appearance yielded by arsenic under simi-
lar circumstances. The quantity was not sufficient to enable
me to submit it to very satisfactory tests. Nevertheless, in a
solution treated by means of the ammonia-nitrate of silver, a
very delicate test, I recognlired the kind of precipitate yielded
by arsenious acid, under similar circumstances.

I took some of the same water, and of the same acid used
in the previous experiment, and submitted another piece of
copper to the same kind of treatment, minus the contents of
the vial : it remained perfectly bright. This proved that the
substance which had discolored the copper in the first expe-
riment was neither contained in the water nor in the acid,
and consequently must have been contained in tiu; matters m
the vial.

Doctor Desjardins placed in my hands another bottle that
was said to contain the stomach of the same woman, Sophie
Talbot, one jjorlion of it was subjected to the n'-uiipulation
recommf;ndedl)yRe!asc-h. The mucous surface of the stomach
appearetl to have been scraped and \\aslied ; (l)and I (observed
to those around me that it was diiiicult under the existing cir-
cumstances lo obtain safisfaeiory results. Reinseh's tes,
yielded results very similar lo those; obtained in the first
<'\pei-imeiit, lliat is lo say, the copper Vv-as stained of an
iron gray colour, but the coating was hoi, so thick or t^o well
marked as in the iirsl <.'\periment.

Several other processes w<'re resorted lo, auKiug them that
recouHuended bv Marsh, but no very satisfactory result was
ol)taine<|. I likewis«.> passed a stream of hydrosulphuric-acid
gas, Ihroiigh ;i pveviously pre[)ared solution of the suspected
matters, but without luiu-lu'd resells. 'I'hese tests are of a less
deiieat(! character Ihanlhat spoken ol us Reinseh's lest. The
principal symptoms of poisoning are pain in the region oftiie

(1) tt Iiiid lieon scraped :iikI wiislieil.

stomach, complained of by the deceased, bloody stools^-, paiii
and constriction of the gullet, preventing her from swallowmg
solid substance.«, and the clotted blood mixed with tlm mat-
ters rejected from the stomach.

These symptoms arc generally met with in cases of poison-
ing by irritant subBtances, such as arsenic and phosphorus.
From the post-modem description of ihe internal i>arts oi
the body, given by the medical witne. ses, I am of oi)imon
that the deceased died of intlammation of the mucous mem-
brane of the stomach, and that the said inllammation was
caused by the introduction of an irritant or corrosive substance.

The smell of garlic mentioned by the medical men as
being present at the time specified, is one peculiar to, and
yielded by phosphorus. The small white particles men-
tioned as being presem, do not, according to my experience,
indicale much by themselves, as such particles are Ire.iuently
met with in the stomach. When carefully examined, I think
it is possible by the touch to discover if such particles be
metallic or not. The Medical witnesses have stated that
tlu; superior portion of the rectum was in a state of disorga-
nisation ; this inllammation and disorganisation, I look upon
a. one of the most marked ellccts of an irritant poison, more
particularly that of arsenic. The inllammation described as
bein- present in the stoma-ii is freciuently met with, but
inllammation ofthe stomach conjointly with severe inllam-
.nalion ami disorganisation )f the rectum, is only met with
in extraordinary cases.

From th(^ iiicts taken collectivcly-alter a careful .examina-
tion of the synnitoms present during the illness, and ol .he
c.adaverousai),;earauces, I am of opinion that the deceased

died from the ellecls of an irritant poison.

\ kixo\v ^milli\^ E.^termiHutor ;\\ is a violent pois..n,
bust- or u.tivc prin.'iplcol which is phosphorus.

the

il^i

From the description of a box and its contents given in
the evidence of Doctors Dube and Desjardins, I am of opinion
that the said box contained Smithes Exterminator'.

I know of no agent by which we can detect the presence
jf phosphorus in the body after four or five month's inhuma-
tion, it is a volatile substance, dc^composed by the contact of
atmospheric air.

Examined by the defence :

The symptoms of poisoning by arsenic are various. I
oelieve that the symptoms of poisoning by phosphorus i-c.
less varied than those of poisoning by arsenic. It is unusual
to meet with an inflmnmation of both extremities of the
intestine tube, the intermediate portions being heaUhy- In
cases of ordinary inflammation, the inflammatory action
spreads by contiguity. In gastro interitis the symptoms are,
vomiting, pain in the region of the stomach, dry skin, |)ulse
small and hard, obstinate constipation, great prostration —
palpitation of the heart is a nervous aftection that may be
produced by inflammation of some very important organ ; it
is likewise seen in nervous diseases.

1 have frecjuently examined tlie bodies cif persons who
have died of Gastritis, the app(!arance of the stomacii varies
according to the duration of the disease, the intensity of the
inflannnation, and the habits of the individual.

There is this diflerence between ordinary Gastritis and
t at caused by irritant poisons, that the disease in the !■ Mer
caseruns its course mucli more inpidly.

It is on record that traces of arsenic have been iound in i nc
soil of several old cemeteries. I bolieve that it wasd(Mi .ted
in ivvo eeiueterles in France, and likewise in England ; the
reason is unknown. Traces of arsenic are not iound in
ordinary soil. There is no arsenic contained in the human

: S

body although a contrary opinion obtained for a length of
time. Orfila who had become a convert to this opinion, has
since acknowledged his error, and even proved the cause of
his error.

The quantity ol arsenic detected by my experiments was
small, inappreciable by the ordinary w^eights ; the quantity ol"
matter acted upon was likewise very small. The quantity of
arsenic found could not ofitselfcau.se death. The slips of cop-
uer used were not heated immediately before being introduced
into the liquid, this w^ould have interfered with the polished
surface, but they had been previously heated so as to free tit m
from the possibility of containing arsenic. They were intro-
duced cold into the liquid, when it was near the boiling
point. After the volatilisation of the lead-colored crust that
adhered to the slips of copper, minute white points were seen
to adhere to the internal surface of the reduction tube, those
points I recognised by their octohedral shape as crystals of
arsenious acid. I am of opinion that the slips of copper were
covered with a film of metallic arsenic, which in the act of
volatilisation became united with air, and converted into arse-
nious acid, which sul)sequently attached itself to the walls ol
the tube.

Re-examination :

Constriction of the throat, and difficulty of swallowing
solid substances, are symptoms not met with in ordinary
inrtanmiations of the stomach.

Marquis and Michaud, both Physicians, are also of opi-
nion that Sophie Talljot died of an inflammation caused by
the taking of corrosive poisons.

Mr. Tache addressed the jury on hclialfof the prisoners.
The line of defence adopted by the prisoners consisted of a
general denegation. It was pretended thai the bod v <)f the

\w i

deceased had not been identified, that there was, no proof of
poisoning, and that, if there were such proof, the poison was
not proved to have been administered by the prisoners.

The following is an abstract of the evidence adduced by
the defence :

Jean Baptiste Morin, witness for the defence :— On the
night of Sophie Talbot's death, Berube came down to the
4th range to his father's house to ask us to go for the
priest, as his wife wat^ dying. We went for him— in
our way lo I'-crube's we met the son of Augustin Theriault
wlu) told us she was dead.

Berulio was very kind and complaisant to his deceased
wife, and he refused her nothing— and on one occasion he
even gave me money to purchas(i ajyphs ami violasscs to
wake preserves for her.

Cross examined :

It was about the br.irining of October last year that Berube
gave me money to purchase apples and molasses. I bought
some and gave them to him ; but I did not l(>arn that pre-
serves were made with them. I lived then with Berube in the
house which he has in the Ith rangt^ of Green Island, and
liis deceased wile lived there at the same lime.

A daughter of Berube, about eleven years of age, is exa-
„iine(|..— She ate of the preserves which wen; brought U) the
cl. ■ceased by Genoll'e Theriauh and ihey did iiol make her
..icU.

Cross examined :

She only tasted tlieni.

Till- Counsel lor the detenee declared his evidence closed.
Mr. Anukrs, lor the Crown, summed up the cvideruu*,

r'l

and Mr. Justice Panet charged the jury, commenting :
1st. upon the evidence which had established that the
death of Sophie Talbot had been occasioned by poison ; 2dly.
upon the facts and circumstances which tended to intj)licatc
the prisoners, and lastly upon the confession of Ccsaree Thc-
riault, as proved by Dr. Dube, directing the jury t weigh
this evidence with the greatest care and precaution, and
imjiressing upon their mind that this evidence could only be
received as against the prisoner Cesarce Theriault.

The jury withdrew for half an hour, and returned a vcrdici
of guilty against the two prisoners.

The Judge then pronounced the sentence of death upon
the prisoners ; and the day of execution was li>a'(l for the
tenth day of December, 1852.

Angers, of Counsel lor the Crown.

Tache and Hujwn, of Counsel for the Prisouj'rs.

This case having been the subject of comments in the
periodical press and elsewhere, and imptn-tant cpiestions
liaving arisen as to the admissibihy and sufficiency of the evi-
dence, the testimony of the medical men, and the rulings ot
the presiding Judge, We publish the following review of
this case, furnished to us by competent jurists, giving also
an abstract of the main objections as to the l(;gality ol the
proceedings such as have appeared in the Quebec Mercury,
and other news-papers. Ed.

REVIEW OF THE CASE

OF REGINA vs. B£RUBE ET AL.

Munhr by Poison.

Article 1. — Remarks on the Kamouraska murder case.
Article 2. — An answer to the above remarks.
Articles. — A general reriei(f of the /air and the facts of
Vie B^ruhti rase.

ARTICLE 1.

REMARKS ON THE KAMOURASKA MURDER CASE.

To the Editor of the Quebec Meirniy.

§ 1. Sir, — 1 rt'udiii the "Canadieii," the report of the recent
trial at Kaniouraska, of one Berube and his wile, accused of
poisoning the first wife of the prisoner Berube. These two
unfortunate individuals have been found guilty and eon-
dfcnin(id to death, and 1 l)elieve they are to be executed on
the 2d proximo. As the evidence adduced has been, in part,
given to the public, I have considered that I would be
wanting in the ol)ligation which every citizen owes to society*
did 1 not call attention to the extraordinary species of evi-
ilence which has been allowed to be adduced against the
prisoners.

No principle in law is more clearly cstablisheil than
that which reji.'cts hearsay evidence ; yet the chijf portion of
the testimony contained in the " Canadien " allowed to be
given against the accused, is wholly of this ol)noxious cha-
racter. \ repeat that the stories of nearly all the witnesses
produced against the prisoners, consist for the most pari, i/i
statements made to them by the deceased.^ when it does not, in
the slightest degree appear, that she was in that sfat(^, which
alone rendered such statements admissible. (1) The rule in

(1) Stutcrnpnts that a sick poison tiuikcs nl' her stiffprinsa ai« admissible iii
evulence — Phil, unci Aiuon on Evid, ji. ;.'()(».

relation to the admission of such statements, is equally as*
well established as the other, and is always laid down in the
books, under the head of " Dying declarations " two words
which at once convey to the mind, what the condition of the
deceased must have been, at the time the statements were
made. (1)

This rule in itsf; 11' forms, aiUn' all, but an exception to trie
general rule, which rejects hearsay evidence. The general
principle, on which the species of evidence termed "Dying
declaralions " is admitted was thus stated by Lord Chief
Baron Eyre, iu Rex vs. Woodcock, (2) " That they nre de-
clarations made in extremity, when the party is al the
point of death, and when every hope of this world is
gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and
the mind is induced, by the most powerful considerations,
to speak the truth. A situation so solemn and so awful is
r'onside.c'd by the law, as creating an obligation equal to that
which is imposed by a positive oath in a Court of Justice.
It is essential to the admissibility of these declarations, and
is aprcliminarjifart, to be proved by the party offering them
in evidence, that they were made under a sense of impendini:;
deaths " It is the impression of almost immediate dissolution,
that renders the testimony admissible." Therefore, where it
appears that the deceased, at the time of the declaration, had
any expectation or hope of recovery, however slight it may
have been, mid though death aetuaHy ensued in an hour after-
imrds, the declaration is inadmissible," (3) " A belief
that the party will not recover, (said Baron Ilullock,) is not
in itself suthcient, unless there be also the prospect of '' almost
immediate dissolution. Hex vs. Butchell, 3, C. & P. 629-31.
In addition to these authorities, I shall merely add the follow-
ing extract n-om the most eminent writers on the subject, on

(1) This was not the cast' ol' a Dying Declaration.

(2) 2 Leach's ("r. Cas. 55H.

(3) East P.C, 458—9, WelbornV case.

i I

il„. |;,iitii(l.- ilins allowed, (I) " Though these dcclara-
liniis, wlicn (Iclibcrately made, under u solemn and roligious
s<'iis<- of iiti|)en<ling dissolntion, and coneernlng eirciims-
limees ill respect of which the deceased was not likely to
hiive been mistaken, aro entitled to great wight, it' precisely
ideal ilied, yet it is alw:iys to be recollecteil that the accused
hiis not the iioiirr of cross-ixaDiiiHifioji, a power (juite as
essential tollie eliciting ol'all the trath, as the obligation of
nil oath can be ;— and that when the wil'.ess has not a deep
airl strong sense of accountability to his master, the passion
(.|;inger, and h-clings of revenge may, r(,v thcij have not iinfir-
(jiuiiiUi ,'H'r)/ fo/ittd It) do, all'ect the truth and accuracy of his
siniements, especially as the salutary and restraining fear of
punishment for perjury is in such cases withdrawn."'

\ow, apjilying these principles to the facts of the Bcrube
case, what do we lind ? (2) Witnesses allowed to detail conver-
sations with the deceased without one tittle of evidence being
adduced to shew that she was under that sense of impending
dissolution, which could alone render lier declarations
admissilile. Where is the evidence of the proof of the cir
cumstance mentioned by L. C. B. Eyre, as essential to the
admissibility of these statements ? Where is the proof of this
'^ preliminary fact to be proved by the party oftiuring them in
evidence :'" Is it in the testimony of Genofle Theriault, who
s\\(\irs tliat the deceased, at the time of some of these conver-
sations '' ctait snr le pied de son lit, parlait, riait avec nous,
elle ne paraissait pas beaucoup soutlrirct ne se plaignait pas
troj) :'' (was sitting at the foot af her bed, speaking and
laugliing with us, she did not appear to sutler much, nor did
she complain much ?) Or is it to be found in the testimony
of Marcel ine Beaulieu, who swears that the deceased was, at

(1) Phil. N; Am. Kvkl, ;)05-i) :— 1 Pliil. Evid. 302 :_2 Jolms, 35,36. per Li-

viiisistoii ,(.

(•J) Tl;i'si> piiiHMples cannot bt- applied to the Eenibe case; there is no
ipiestion ti.ere oi' dying declarations,, btil of the description given by the deceaseil
ul hersudeiinsis.

the thiip of (Iicso slafpmfnfs, jiblo fo jipt ii|) uUw ■ that
sli«,' was slill lolrrahly slroiig and that llic deceased loJd her
liiatlierlmsband liail a prefeiriu-e for llie leiiiale prisoner,
dial she nevertheless, never said so in her iinsband's
presence, and tluit the deceased made Ihese coiniilaints
siv or seven months before li(>r deadt, while the indiei-
nient charged iht; prisoner with poisoning her sonic fi>w
days before she died ? I will not lake np more ijiuc
on this portion of the subject, bnt will pass on loa nofli.'r,
<'ontenting myself wiUi merely asking whal (he ,'l]rr\
of such leslimony must have been on the minds of ajury com-
pos(>dinall probability of twelve uneducaled nieti from the
country, when I add that the same IMarceline Beaulicii was
allowed to stale that the deceased told h(>r "tlial llie prisoner,
Berube, believed that she was ill because there was ))oisoii
in the potatoes which she had been given," and this in :i
case were the prisoner was charged with this very crime of
poisoning ! (1)

Apart from this testimony, other evidence of a still more
reckless nature seems to have been permitted. Thus we iind
tlie same witness saying " ahnost immediately after the
decease of Berube's wife, it was said (on disait) that l?erub6
and the female prisoner were going to be married ; and the
members of the female i)risoner's family said so ! Was
this, or was it not, hearsay evidence ? To cap the climax
however, we find Philomene Boule, swearing " that on liie
Wednesday preceding the dec(;asc of the woman, Sim isst>
Theriault, a child, now aged ' about six years ' (conse.iuently
at the time of statement he w^as scarcely five years old l)tol<f.
me that the prisoner had given a small red box to the female
prisoner, and that he (the child of five years old) believed
that it was for the purpose of poisoning Julie Ouellet, his
mother."

o& Si^jii'i'uSr' ^^""' "'^""" '" '''' p"^'""^^' ^"^ '^ ^'- i--"ou^

ill

•'.'If

Ai*part ((Illy (dihc (i(>p()siti()n f)l f'icnf Clinbot is j)ubliishcd,
I rt'lViiiu IVom cxpHtiuting upon it, hnl eve ii in llinl part, we
have a constable swearing that the Magistrate endeavoured
jo induee the femah^ prisoner to beeome " Queen's evidence "
in consequeiHc of tlie proof adduced before the Coroner ! To
ilie honor of the Consfablc^ be it said, he tohl tiic Magintrate^
ihal '' in his o])inion the tinn" iiad not yet eome to do that, and
(I'at certain foruinlities must iirsi be adopted "! Verily, if
those gentlemf^Ti were made to change olliees the public
>..ervice, would be beneJitted.

In conclusion, I beg to slate, that I do not believe I
have made myself subject to the accusation of having
eomnient(>d upon the (evidence whih; a pcrlion of it only
was befoH! the public, because such testimony is illegal
/>fr ,vf, and cannot be rendered h^gal by ^ubsc<|uent evidence,
and J will add, that // /s possible \\in[ the " preliminary fact"
adverU'd to, may hnve been established, and if so, then the
evidence may have been legally received and the prisoners
duly convicted, but I can sec no reason why so important a
portion of the testimony should have been omitted in the report
<>f a case, apparently so vtM-y minute and circumsfaUtial, and
which must have been handed for publication by some one
who t(>ok notes of the trial. Should such however be the
lase, J shall be most happy to withdraw my strictures, and
make the amemle hononblv a qui dc droit ; but should the
report be a correct detail of all that was adduced, and should
it appear on further incpiiry, thnt the other evidence which
was ti-ndered, was not sullicient in law to sustain the indict-
nienl, tlien T think it will become necessary to give another
Court the opportunity of declaring, whether or not, the trial
in question, \vas, in the words of Lord Denman, "a mockery,
a delusion, and a snare r"

AN ADVOCATE,

To Ihi- Kilitor oj tin Muniinp, Clironiiir,

§2. Sir, — Tlir whole ivpcrt ol'llic lirnilx'' case lins nowbeiMi
piihlislicd, imd cviM-y oik; can iiuli,'c lor liiinscir, liow lar llic
Htidjiiii; of tlir verdict was waiTiuil(Hl l)y the evidence aildii-
ced, Par I'roiri l)eing of opinion ihal llie sul)s(!{|neji1 piihlica-
(ion of dii! leslinmny has corrected the errors of the /irsi por-
tion, or shewn that I was wrong in connnentint^ on it itt'ire-
nual, I am the more (-onvinced that an erroneons course
WHS adopttnl from thc> heginning — that evidence, ofan iMegal
nature, anti irrelevant in its tendency, was acJjuitted, — that,
the minds of the jury were aMowed to be inlhienced hy con-
siderations foreign to tlie subject of the accusation, and that
in short, nothing has been established to warrant the admis-
sion of evidence which must have tended to convict the
prisoners.

Not a tittle of legal evidence has hvv.n adduced to attach
the poisoning to lierul)e. The t(>stimony given at the trial
connects him, in no wise, with the aduunist ration of either
arsenic <n- |)hosphorus, or as tlie witnesses term it, " Sinif/i\s
Extrrminntory Two (|uestions j)resented themselves at this
trial. The first, whether Sophie Talbot had died in conse-
quence of poison having been administered to her ? and
secondly, l>y whom this poison hat! been administered ? The
solution of these iiuestions should have been attained by the
usual predetermined and specific rules of inquiry, and this
would have bc(;n more eiliciently obtained in this manner,
than by allowing the tribunal the uncontrolled liberty of
action, which it seems to have preferred. The knowledge
of a multitude of comparatively insignificant facts serves

often rather to confuse tlian enlighten, and the wider the
field of inciuiry the greater the danger of mistake, from

emotions created by irrelevant evidence. The very form of
the inquiry is of vital importance as respects the f ?curity of
society, for experience has shewn that this form was a neces-
sary safeguard for such security.
3

.'^4

Pi'Off'iMliiig (ii'sf to examine iIh» viiIik" of ilu' •■vidciicr
iiddiKcd ii,i,'!Htisl Urrulu', we llnd ii iitlcrly worth less- 1 tlis-
dairi ai^'iiiii to iTlurn to llic lostiiiioiiy ol llu' cliild Narcissc,
and even il'liis fvidcncc won.' legally or rrai»oi)ul)ly adiiiis-
Kihlo, llioro is no proof wlui1<'V(>r to fonnrct the l)o\ u hicli
lie ^:\\v IJi'-riibi' give, with ihal out ol which the (cmah- pri-
MMicr took tiic snl)sianc«' to mix up with llic prcsrrvcs — none
wliat('V(>r.(l)It was iiowc'vpr (.'onccivcd that itwoiild fasten a
{los.sihiliiff of ilu- a(huinistration of poison upon him, coukl it
lu! establishi'd that lie had purchnseil poison of the ih'st-rip-
lion whifli, it is ulioged, caused the death of his* wife, and
in order to effect tliis important objeet, two Avitnesses were
examined. Their testimony was certainly of ;i forurKhible
nature, for th(>y both (Jarvis and his daughter) positively
sw(;ar, that thini had no arsenic in tlieir establishment, when
lievube asked for it, and that he absolitU'lji refused to purchase
the " E.derminalor, " i)ecause lie found the privr loo hii>h ?
Now, a man, who, it is pretended, was so very anxious to
get rid of his wife, would scareely have hesitated to give
//loentij pence for a poison which woidd so ellectually secure
his objeet. Therefore, the only evidence ollered to connect
Herube with the procurement of the poison incontestably
(Established that he ol)iained none al all. (l) When so many
extraneous m<>thods were resorted to, for the purpose of
endeavouring to criminate him, why were not eri()rts made
to discover the parties from whom t.he poison was obtained ?
P(n*haps the iivmiense amount of '-econdary and irrel>-vant
evidence, which must have tak; ii much time and pains to
collect, caused this importeint factio li(> lost sightof. There is,
I may observe here, no i)roof wdiateverofthe adminulerhii^of
arsenic by either prisoner. Even as regards Cesaree The-
riault, tlie evidence of (idmim'slrafio)/. is confined to the sub-

(1) Conln't. S(;i> Philominic Boulu's cvid'MR'c, anit Ifiat nl'tlio cliild,
f-J) Tht'i'e is othrr I'vidoii'.'o connecting: Bciubti with Iht; criiiic.

i^tanrp: IVom Uif box, vhirk it is mppnuerJ^ rr»ntninffl the

f'jXffnu/Nfitor.

ll-.w'iwjr failed on lliis point, if hocame Mppfirmtly ncrpfisary
fo sfunv that Mcrnbt'' was not on ^oofl tornis with liis wile, and
stranjti:^ '" !■ i.Vi tlio only <'vi(lfnc{' in support of siuli a sup-
position is (oiind in tho firnrsaij <'\'nU'nrr of Marcfliiic IJeau-
li»Mi, wlio was told l)y tiic dcccasud six or sovcn months
hclor*' the criuK" is hIIp^'ccI to have boon comtnitted, thai she*
was noi happy, and yd, we lirivc the positive* testimony
nmhr oath ofthesaifl JMarceliiie Beanlien, (Jeiiollii Therianlf,
Amable Oiiellet, and .lean lite. Morin, a\'Iio swear " that
FJ«''rube and his wile were always on good terms, and tlic^y
lived happily '• rounin' fl rsf hicii ran'' — that Herabe was
always Ivind and eom()laisant to her — that he refused her
nothini>" and all lliislollicir iicrsonal kHoiHcd^v ; and the ne-
j^ative testimony of the brother and children of die deceased^
who lived with her, and who yet say nothing of an mijilea-
sant feeling existing between the parties.

Perhajis it may 1)e urged that during her illness, h" mani-
fested the utmost indillerenee to hir health, and evinced a
tlesire to see hev langiusli without any effort to succour or
relieve her. The only evidence that I can tind concerning
this point is contained, 1st — in the deposition of the same
Marceline B(>aulieu, who says, that the prisoner scut for
warm punch wliich revived his wife, and was given her by
the witness herself, that he went to her hiaise to get medc-
eine for his wife, saying she was ill, and reciuesting her
assistance, and imi)loring her to lend him a feather bed for
his wife, as she liad not a comfortable matrass — of his having
procured tminnc for iier. i2nd — \n the deposition of GenoUe
Theriault, who proves that Berube went to her house during
the night to inform her that his wife was ill, and that he
wished to procure for her the last consolations of a dying
christian. 3rd — In the depositions of Philomene Berube and
3*

it.

V :■

111 I

Germain Talbot, (the former the thmghter, and the other the
brother of the deceased) who (HHiHrni the f^lalenient of JSlar-
eeline Beaulieu ; and 4tli, in the deposition of Jean Bte.
Morin, who |)roves that fierube requested liini also lo go for
the Cure to atleiid his siek wife. If this ground of accusa-
tion be abandoned, |)erhaps, it will be said, that on the occa-
sion of the .^m «"««cs.s- of liie ('cceased (which took place
when her husband ivas absenl, and during which she exhi-
bited syinptonis similar to those observed during her last
attack) Berube acted in a maimer which evinced his anxitUy
to lose his wife Tins is provetl perhaps by the testimony of
the deceased's daughter, Philomene, who swears, that when
the prisoner heard t^I' this illness, he went at once to attend
his wife, and by that of Felicite Peltier, who confirms the
deposition of Fhilome'.ie, and adds that from what he did for
lier, his wife became better, and that he did nut leave her
until her illness had disappeared.

It is moreover evident from the conthict of Bernbe, that lie
was not al all desirous that his wife should vn\ of the preserves
(suppof-^d to be poisoned) for we find Philomene Berube
establishing that " as some dirt had fallen into t]i<? preserves,
and as the prisoner had put his lumdsinto the cup to take it
out, the deceased said that the preserves were too dirty, and
thai we shovild eat no more, upon which the prisuncr Ihrcw
them awaji and \\\e prisoner himself took titcmfrommn mother.''''
And it is moreover clear, that neither Berube nor die female
prisoner v/as wa'ching that no cHorts should be m t le to
exaiiiiiie the preserves, for we find that either one or the other
or both, absented thenisclve'* with some of the visitors,
leaving the deceased with her friends, who, if anything pecu-
iiarv/asthen discovered about these pre->erves, might have
retained them for further imes-tigation.

Dr. Dube (as I have already mentioned in my usl letter)
was allowed to give in evidence an admission made by the

female prisoner, on llie morning afnn- the inquest. That ad-
mission was us follows : "Hegavimie alittlebox of tin, covered
with paper glued on the scam.s — I opened it, — it was of arose
colour and of the consistence of suet. I took some three times
on the blade of a knife and put itin the preserves, and each time
that I did so smoke was produei'd. / onljj put a lillle i)i
the presci'ves.'''' Now f have already shewn that this evidence
eould not afl'eel JJernlie. Numerous authorities support this
position. I shall content myself with shuply referring to a few:
—Hex vs. Fletcher, 4 Car. and P. 250 :— Rex vs. Jlearne, 4
Car. and P. 215 :— Rex vs. Walkely, G Car. and P. 175 :— Rex
vs. Appleby, 3 Stark, 33 : — (In this case, A. & B. were charged
with the joint commission of a felony, and A, on his examina-
tion before amagistratf^ statetl in the hearing of C, that he and

B, jointly connnitted such felony, which B did not deny ; and
yet it was heid that these circumstances were not admissible,
as evidence against B,) Rex vs. Pounlney, 7 Car. and P. 302 : —
2 Russ. o)i C. p. 8U4, and Arch. 122. Besides it nmsl be
remembered that, this so called admission was made
irithin some tiro or three hours after the inducement had been
held out to this vurman. tnj the magistrate to confess, and when
she was in the custody of the very man in whose presence the
inducement wa» made. (1) Now, it is undeniable in law that
a second confession made under the sam<.' iniluence as the
lirst is not receivable in evidence (Meynell's case, 2 Lewin,

C. C. 122 :— Taunton, S. P. Sherrington's case :— lb. 123,
Patterson.) And it is quite needless for me to shew that this
c()nft>ssion must have been made under the iniluence of this
inducement, since the learned Judge refused to admit admis-
sions rnadf? by this woman even twenty-four hours after the
above admission made, on the express ground that the influ-
ence silll predominated. (2) Reject this admission, and where

(1) This admissinii was tnatlc without the presence of Chiibot.

('2) N'oloiily iiiHUi ttiis yrDiiml, bul also (ipoii the jjiociiii that tin- latter adiiiis-
hicDs \Yere made in presern'e (it (leisons iii HiiUiDrity, (roiii \vholii the pritoiier
uiiglit oxiieit some bcrietit.

is the proof that. Cesaree Theriault ccdministered any suspi-
cious substance whatever ?

One would have thought that we had enough of hearsay
evidence, and yet Germain Talbot is allowed to state con-
versations between hira and Augustin Theriault (father to the
female prisoner) which would tend to criminate liie accused,
for diey convey threats on the part of this Auguslin Theriaull,
against the witnes;; if he should speak againsi the female
prisoner. (I) Throughout the whole course of the evidence,
we find constant efforts made to keep before the mind
of the jury, that an illicit connexion existed between the two
prisoners during the lifetime of the deceased, and that even
so long as three years and a half ago Berube was on
improper terms of intimacy wilh the female prisoner, (then
between VZ and 13 years of age.) Thisis approjiriately follow-
eci Uj- by evidence that the female prisoner became cmxintc
about a fortnight after the interment of the deceased.
What had all this to do, with the charge of pomming ? Were
the prisoners bound to maintain their character for chas-
tity, or defend their lives on a charge of murder ? Truth
and justice require that the verdict of a jury should result
wholly from the evidence, and that the evidence should yf/«/e
aolely to the fact charged — Did tlu^ prisoners poison the
deceased ? The fact of their having or not having done the
deed cannot de[)end upon the ideas which the jury may
entertain of the conjugal tldcdily of one of the parties. This
evidence indicates the natnrn of the course atiopted — I'aet.s
established, without compunction, n-levant or irri'lcvant — a
fearful advantage being obtained over the unfortunate pri-
soners — their case prejudgetl in the minds of the jury wilh
evidence of no legal value — their previous history pretended
to be related, perhaps disU)rted — and thus making the ques-
tion of their guilt or innocence to turn, not upon the evidence

».[

(1) These threats wcrp made in presencfi oJ'B6nii)e, wlio, it is provRil, juined
in them.

addurcd rp<q)€rfing the dred^ for the supposed perpetration of
wlijeli ihey were tlien being tried, but upon the notion which
the jury might form as to their former conduct and character.
The safeguards which experience and forethought liave dis-
covered and suggested, for the protection as well of the
accused as of the society which arraigned tliem, have been de-
parted from ; llie dictates of humanity and of common justice,
violated ; and a court of jus'i>;e assembled to decide upon the
life or death of two fellov/ creatures converted into a scene
wholly repugnant to the spirit and the letter of .our institu-
tions.

I alluded, cu passant in my last paper, to the su[)posed tV't'«-
litfj of Ihc corpse of Sop/iie Talbol. One can understand the
necessity of having legal proof of this fact. The necessity,
or utility of establishing the Identitij of the coffin is not quite,
so clear. However, Lambert Ouellet, was examined on this
point. He swears " that he filled up the deceased's grave,
alter the co/Hn had been put in, that it was ho who took up
the eoilin at the inciuest, that the coiHn so taken up is the same
that v^as put in as containing the body of Sophie Talbot. The
coffin had been painted with the soot of smoke wiien it was
put in the {,round, and was black ; when it was taken uj>
the soot and black were gone."(l) in other words, he says,
^ I buried a black cotlin and I dug up a white one !" The iden-
:iiy of tiie coffin is established hij proving that it leas luholl/j
(''Jferent from the one said to contain the body \ Now, this
proof must have presented itself to the jury under a sijlloi^istir.
form sonivithing like this. " The eolIin buried was a black
one ; but the ct)ilin dug up, was a vjhitc one ; therelbre the
/ft/^«' contained the bod^ of the deceased !"

It is not my intention to comment on ilie evidence
given by the Medical Cientlemen, for, I take it, sufficient
has been shewn, to establish thai in consequence of

(1) Tlie¥u tiiiJ Ijetu ell'art'il liy moisture.

w ,

illegal f vidcnco having being received against the prisoners
the verdict rendered against them is illegal. I shall mere-
ly say, that even arguing upon the facts supposed to be
proved, there is no evidence as to the quantity of the Exlcr-
minator administered in the first place, only " a little," it is
proved, was put into the preserves ; 2o. the deceased only
took two or three teapoonsful of the })reserves ; whereas the
whole (juantity consisted of about three lingers in depth of a
bowl. Here would arise the chief question, whether the
quantity taken (supposing the preserves contained poison) was
sufficient to deSi • '' ^

There is no evide , on this point — on the contrary, all the
Medical Gentlemen agre(! in slating that in so far as the
Arseni(t is considered (and there is no prt)of of the (ulminis-
//*«^/r>// of that substance) thi; (|uautity discovered was not
s;iffieient to destroy life. \ow, ni> Phosphorus was discovered
in tln> body at all, because (say these gentlemeu), il is a
volatile substance, and yet great stress is laid on the fact of a
strong smell of garli(> arising from tlie body, said to proceed
from this very substance. It is somewhat difficult to find a
smell remaining months after the substance which has pro-
duced the odour has disappeared. ()n<' would think that
the accessary could not exist Avithout the [)rincipal. \o\v
the oilour of garlic would aris(» fn^n Arsenic when heated,
and yet this fact seems to liave been wholly slurred i>ver. 1
shall not say a word, either, of a coufusiou which seems to
iiave taken place between the classification of Arsenic and
Phosplun'us, as irritants and corrosives. I regret nevertheless
that other |K)rtions of the IxkIv were not sulijecti'd to exami-
nation. The brain and spinal marrow might have been looked
at, for Arsenic could aiiei-1 botli. This was the more neces-
sary as the sym|>toms arc; not always clearly indicative of the
poison taken. Another very singular circumstance connected
witii this poisoning is, thai although the female prisoner and
the witnesses Genofi'e Theriiuill, Philomene Berul)e, and

another girl, partook oi'tho preserves, yet, they did not staffer
from the effect of it. Tliey, (and the deceased likewise)
found they had a good taste. (1) Now, if they really contained
this Sinith\'i Exterminator which has so very offensive a
smell, (and so powerful as to be quite perceptible 5 months
alter the substance itself ceased to exist,) can it be true that
in the eating of the preserves, the smell was not discovered ?
The Medical witnesses do not appear to have been asked with-
in what period of time poison usually proves fatal! The
stomach was preserved, but had been so much scraped by the
other gentlemen (who nevertheless admit that they had not the
necesssary instruments to carry out the experiments) that Dr.
Jackson could not establish any thing satisfactory by an exa-
mination. Besides, it is (juite possible, tl it it may have been
preserved in Alcohol, which woidd have s(!riously embarrass
ed an analysis of its contents. A very delicate exi)eriment was
resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining whether the subs-
tance contained in the vial given by Dr. DnbeloDr. .Fackson,
taken from the stomach of the deceased, was impregnated
with poison — I allude to " Reinch's Pro(;ess." " In theapi)li-
cation of this ingenious process (2) the solid or liquid sup-
posed to contain arsenic is l)oiled with one-sixth part of
pure muriatie aeid^ and a slip of bright copper foil is
then introduced." T trust, 1 may \w pardoned, if 1 say
that I cannot understand why in the experiment made by
the Medical Gentleman on the substance contained in this
vial, " he added water," to tin; acid ? More particularly as
the same author says, " One great advantage is, that we are
not obliged to dilute the licjuid in the experiment, and there
is no loss of arsenic ;" for he adds : " the deposit of arsenic
is materially affected by the (|uanlily <>f water present, or, in
other words, the degree of dilution." I regret moreover,
that hut one piece of copper was introduced into this substance,

(1) I'pon tliis I'liint. irad tlieaiiswei- totln'sc reiiuiiks.
Ci) Taylor's Medical Jur. p. 91.

for, sinro tlip qnantily obtained was so small as to bo " wup-
prmab/e'''^ in weight, aconlinualJon was advisable ; because,
says Taylor : " If enougli should not be ajiparent from one,
piece of copper, several may be successively introduced. A
large surface ol copper may be in this way at once covered,
and the arsenic collected." Taylor speaks of another experi-
ment for the purpose of determining the presence of arsenic,
viz: that, of cutting the liver, spleen, and kidneys, into very
small pieces, and subjecting them also to Reinsch's process,
ff is a pity thai all these organs were not subjected to the test.
One of the medical gentlemen (who has nevertheless given an
enlightened testimony) admits that he never heard of the pre-
.sence of arsenic in the soil of Cemeteries — yet, Taylor says,
(p. !)5l that it is established by the researches of several tox-
j<*()logists, that such soil often contains a compound of that
substance.

1 have already objected to " hearsay evidence ;" before
t'oiu'luding, I have also to object to an " opinion" given
by a medical witness, apparently in answer to a ques-
tion, iiol. within the scope of those in which his opinion,
would be receivable. The gentleman in question pays,
" From the description of a box, of whicli mention has been
made by Drs. Dube and Desjardins, / am of opinion that
tills box contained )S?;/77A',s- ExUrmina.ior.'^'' Now this witness
was no more ([ualified than any layman lo givc^ an opinion
In relation lo this matter — il was not a question of medical
sciciH".' or skill — (or although tlie box might have correspond-
>'i\ ir/lh /lie boxes whicli eontaintlm '•'■ Exterminator^'''' yo.\^
ihcn^ is nothijjg incon>sistenl with this fact in supposing
thai ihis very box may have contained tooth-powder or any
oilier Mi')slaiice. A medical witness should " remember
that ills conclusions are to bi; based only upon inedicul
lads — not upon moral circumstances, unl(!ss he be spe-
I'ially required lo express au opiuioii with regard to Ihcni,
when lliey arc ol a UHMiieo-moval ualun- Further, they nmsl

1 .'I ■-

"l!

be based only on what, he has /limsclf seen or observed.'''' (1)
Did it become absolutely necessary to indentify this box and
the substance it contained, I submit that the identical John
Smilli himself might, failing other evidence, have been })io-
duced.

And now, I shall finish my conespondence on this subject,
in the words of the reviev.'cr of Madame Lafurge's case,
published in the Edinburgh Review. "The quantity of irrele-
vant matter introduced on this trial is absolutely marvellous,
while the facts stated in evidence which really related to the
issue, are in the same proportion few, and for tlie most |)ar1
insignificant." And now, 1 ask with that, writer " whether it
would be safe, whether it woukl condiice to the seciu'ity of
society at large, to deem the ])risoners guilty, upon evidence
which in itself is so untrustworthy, and received in a manner
so well calculated to destroy tlie little value it might other-
wise have possessed ?" Looking back through the w holr
evidence, (tarefully weighing each separate item adchiccd,
trying its worth by every test which flui (>xperience of ages has
suggested, I am satisfied that there was not sullicient evidence
to prove that the deceased came to a violent end ; still It^ss
to shew that the prisoners were the guilty cause? of her death.
The system (Muployed served to increase, not to allay alarm ;
it made criminals, without proving them to b(; guilty ; and
thus it will teach the people to feel, that not only are they
exposed to the assaults of tlie wrong-do(;r, biUthat they are
also liable to incur even gr(!attM' harm from the very means
intended for their protection.

The termination of the Ramouraska trial arrives at last,
after having occupied from Saturday till Friday of the follow^
ing week. The .Indge I'eads his notes, and addresses tlie jury ;
that body retiit , and return into (Joiirl after a dcliberaiinn ol
half an how\ and in tht; midst of the g(>neral auxiciy, iliese

^ (1) Tayloi'H Mi'digal Jur., p. 6'J.

•<,.#i

men pronounce avordicl of guilty against tlio man and the
woman. The Judge pronounces the sentence of death against
the prisoners. A dread emotion prevails in the Court, and the
tears of the condemned mingle with those of the spectators,
and the day which is to close the mortal existence of two hu-
man beings is proclaimed. All is over. The father of three;
helpless childr;m — the mother of an infant babe, are conducted
to prison, there to remain till they undergo the last punishment
which the power of their fellows can inllicrt. wSilenced now
are the fancies that entered the heads of their neighbours,
hushed are the conjectures of the gossiping crones. The
work is done. Thk frekogative of mercy still remains !
Shall tlies(! people be executed, and the press t)f this district

utaintain silence .^ (I)

" AN ADVOCATE."

ARTICLE 2.

Ail ansirrr to the Remarlis of an Adrocate.

So much has licen written and published touching this
mifortunatf; alVair that it would seem necessary to have done
with it ; nevertheless as every thing that has been said upon
the subject, has been so said ]'J.rj)ar/i\ it will no doubt be
allowed one who was present at the trial \o make a state-
ment in <>lucidation of truth and in the interest, of justit-e.

It is perha))slate, but it must be b<n'ne in mind, lliat it
would not have been right to express an oi)inion at a lime
wlien the fate of tlu; prisoners was undecided, and was still
in tlie hands of the Government. Moreover the period of
lime which has now elapscnl must have h;id the eji'ect of
smoothing down the ill feeling's which certain publications
must have given rise to.

(1) A large number of petitions in I'avui tiCacornrmitation bavinji been sent Croia
the DisliiiH (It Ivainonrasiiy, the prisoners have liad tbeii senlenre lonmiuted
uilo au lUipi isonnient lor lite m tlie Penitentiary.

II is ncvcfiy<xry to obsf rve, af tlic outset, that the evidenco
as published in the C'a//ftr/i!Vvi and as publisher] uwhv ./oiirnnf
(h: Queht(\ and upon wiiieli several (roiunients have been
juade, is not eonectly given : certain errors have crept in,
certain omissions have been math'. Jt is confused and
obscure, lliis is not attributable (o the reporter, but to cir-
cumstances ov(;r which no control could be exercised.

The reporter has omitted certain answers of tlie boy Nar
cisse Theriaiill to the {|uestions put to hiin by the (Jourt upon
the closing of his evidence. An important omission has
been made in relation to the evidence of one Chabol to
whose testimony a number of objections were made, which
were all maintained by the court, by reason of its being in
presence of ('habot, that (ilauvreau, the Justice of the Peace,
suggested to the female prisoner tlu; |)ropricty of her be-
coming a witness for the Crown. It is reported neverdic-
less, that on<! of these objcetions was set aside, such is noi
the case. The rr'ason of this, no doubt, involuntary <.'rror, is
thai the examination of th(> witness was continued upon
matters which had preceded the jiretended admission which
was attributed to the female prisoner. In the; address to the
jury, it was plainly said that the statements made to Chabol
could not be received, those only made to Dr. Dtibe being
admissible. The Court distinctly slating to the jury the rea-
sons f<n' deciding thai the admissions to the constable Chaljot
could not be received, and the ground for admitting those
made to Dr. DuIjc.

The points raised in relation to this trial are reducible lo
four principal ones.

1. That the C'ourt had admitted hearsay evidence, which
ought not to have been taken.

2. 'riiiil tfip f'videnfp nl' a child who did not iindeir!««tand
llic iiiiliiif of ;in oidli lind been ndinitlcd.

:). 'riijinlic ;i(lmissions ukuIc I)v ilif r«'iniil«' prisonor to
Dr. Dnlx', iiflfi- il li;id hrcii siii^ircslrd lo licr, that it would be
belter tli;il slie hliotild become a \vitnes>< Cor the Crown, had
been illeiially ;uhiiilted by llie ('i>'irt.

■I And Instly. 'That n^ lo the prison(!r Heriibe, tliere was no
Miflicicni proof of liis piirlicip;Hion in the <'riine c-harged.

iiHsr I'oixr.

fii •nppnrtin;.' die I'usl |»oiiil, it has Ix'en pretended that
no'iiinijj w as clearer in hiw than tlie rule wliieli rejects hear-
say evidence, and that neverliieless ihe principal part of the
evitlenee receiv(Hl aLijainsl the |)arlies ai'cnsed wns evidenee
of that descri})lion.

[I has been repeatedly said tliat the ovidenc*^ given by
most of the witnesses produced, consisted of what had been
said to iliem by ili<-' deceased, concerning her state of health,
and that it did not appear that she \vas in that state which
could alone render her statements admissible; — naruely,
under the ini]n'ession of impending dissolution.

The writers upon the su[)jeet did not perceive that dying
declarations were not in qu(>stion, but that the matter under
consideration was the symptoms aflecting a woman alleged
in the indictment to have been poisoned. It is to be regretl(xl
I hat they did not advert tothe followingauthority Iromthc W'ork
cited bv lliem, else they would have found that : — " Whenever
"• tiie bodily or mental feelings of an individual are material
" to be proved, tlie usual expressions of such feelings, made
" ;il the linu' in cpiestion, are also original (evidence....
"and wliellier they were real or feigned, is for the Jury to
" determine. . . . So also, the representations made by a sick
" person of llie nature, symptoms and eil'cct < of the malady

*' nndtn' wliicli lit' is l!ib(»njig ni ihc lirrir, :iro rfrrivrd ai«
" original evidence If made 1<> a HK'dical altenflnnt, they
" are of greater weight as evidence, hut if made to any
" other person they are not rejected on that account.'" (I)
It has been said : —

" Thus, we hnd the same witness saying, immediaielv
" after the (h'coasc of Bernl)e.'s wile, it was said thai Bcnihe
" and the leiiKde [jrisoner were going to l>e married, ami i!ie
" members oftlie family of the female prisoiu-r said so ! ! ! "
and then, " was this or was it. not, hearsay evidence." This
evidenct! was admissible ; upon consulting lioseoe rui evi-
dcncce, the foUowing passage will bi; found, — ^ Where how-
" ever the pecvdiar circumstances of tlu,' case are siich as to
" all'ord a presnmplion that the hearsay evidence is true, it is
"• then admissible.'" (2)

In the present case, the ])r(>sumptions were siioiig, the pri-
soners wer(; in the habit of meeting, and they were soon
after married.

In answer to similar objections the same anllior is refern'd
to, li(i says :

" Where the inquiry is into the nature and character of n
" certain transaction, not only what was done, but also what
" was said by both parties during the continuanc(^ of the
" transaction is admissible, for to exclude this, would be to
'' exclude the most important evidence. In this case, ' is
" not the statements of those persons, unconnected wiili the
" fact which is received, but it is the declaration of the parties
" to the fact themselves, or ofotherseonnccted with themselves
" in the transaction, which are admitted for the purpose of
" illustrating its peculiar character and circumstances."
It has been argued that the portion of the evidence of
Philomene Roule, in whicli she states that the boy Theriault

(t.) ! Gicenloiif, oil J-vidonco, p. 102.
(2) Ros' oe, on evidence, p. 22.

had told fi«'r that the iiiah- prisonrr had t^ivon a little box to
lilt! Iciiialc prisoner, niiohl not tc» hav(; hecu adiuilled ; ihir*
objeclion will be iitucaltcr adverted It).

SM'ONI) roiNT,

That the rvidonce of a child who did not understand the
nature of an f)atli had l)een admitted.

It is well in llie first, plaee lo examine the Law whieli
•settles this question. — Rose ne, p. I |-|, wriliui^ upon the sub-
ject, expresses himself thus : — " At one time, their ai^c {of
" childn n) was considered as the criterion of their coiupe-
" tency, and it was a "^'cneral rule that none could be
" admitted under tli( a'^e of nine years, very few mider ten."

The error lies in havini>; taken the old rule as law, and all
the citations up to the case of lirazler in 1779 are not appli-
cable, as the law now stands ,— and it seems not to have been
observed that it was in that very case that the nt>w ruh- was
ado|)ted. Koseoe points this out ; he says: "Subsequently
" all the ,)udges agreed that a child of any age, if capable
*•' of distinguishing lietwet^n good and <'vil, might be exa-
" mined upon oath, and that a child of whatever age could
" not be examined unless sworn. This is now the establish-
" ed rule in all cases civil as well as criminal, and whether
" the prisoner is tried for a capital oHence or one of an
'^ inferior nature."

This is the criterion by which the admissibility of the
evidence of a child, whatever his age may be, must be tested,
namely, whether he is (capable of distinguishing between
good and evil, and not by his capacity to give a correct defi-
nition of an oath. Another authority may be here cited :
Phillips, on evidence, in his first volume j), 20, after having

S'h'

eferrcd fo Hlackstonc, snys : " 1( srriiis liowfvi^r impossiblo
' fo liiy down liny ii;en(Mal rule on the suhjcci, applirabli; to
' ill! cases. A prisoner may be legally eonviolcd on Mieh
' evidence alone, and nnstipporled, and whether thn account
' of the wilnesH ie(|nires1o Ite corroboraled in any part or to
' what extent, is a (juestiori exclusively lor the Jury, to bo
' deferujined by Ihem on a review ol" all the cireunislfinccH
' of the case, and specially of the manner in which ihe child
has given his evidence.'"

The following i. the preliminary examination of the child,
as extracted from die notes of the presiding Judge :

Q. What age are you ?

A. I shall be six years old in tlic month of January.

Q. Do yon kncnv what an oath is ?

A. I do not understand that.

Q. Have you bc(!n to Cathechism .•'

A. No, hut I am about going.

Q. Is there a God ?

A. Ves.

Q. Do you know what telling the truth i^ ?

A. Yes.

Q. Where are people punished, when ihcy do not tell the
truth }

A. In hell.

Q. Are people also punished in this world.

A. Yes.

Q. What prayers do you know .'

A. 1 do not understand that,
4

ijM.

;':1 '

i -1

Q. Do yon say your prayers somoiimos ?

A, Yos, at niglil, bc^foiv going to bod, nnd also in the
morning. I say one part, alone, and mamma makes me say
llic rest.

Q. Is it a sin lo tell stories under oaili ?

A. Yes.

Q. Where would you he jntnished, if you ditl not li-U tiic
inith undin- oath ?

A. In hell, and I would also l)e punislird in this v/orld.

Upon this, the Court overruled the ohjcelion made to the
}u;aving of this witness, who was then sworn. He was then
asked by the Court if he was obliged to tell the truth, and he
answered he was.

It must be reeolleeted that tl^e admissibility only of the wit-
ness is in question ; — his evidence will be reviewed later.

Ahhough tliis child was unal)le to give a definition of an
oath, — it is nevertheless plaii from his answers, — that lie
knew what obligation was imposed upon him by his oath,
and how he eould be punished for false swearing, as well in
this world as in the ne>,t, and that he was capabic of dis-
tinguishing good from evil.

According to the authoritv tal 'n from Rnscoe and from
Phillips, the evidence of the child having l)ern taken, it was
exclusively within the province of the jury to sa;y whether,
taking into f'rcount all the circumstances of the case, and the
manner in whicli the evidence had been given, — the state-
ments of the witness required any nnd what corroboration.

It was therefore right in the Cour* to take this evidence.
The law gave the judge a discretionary power to that etfect,
as it gave the jury the power ol deciding how far the evi-
denco requi'-ed corroboration. The cvidencp of Gunofln

Theiianll, .liilio Onelk'l, and Philomeno Boule, and the
adiiiisiriions of Cesareo Theriault, confan-niiig the box in
question, all corrobome the testimony of the boy Narcisse.

THIRD POINT.

Tliat the admissions made by the female prisoner to Dr.
I)ul)e, after it had been siiifgostrd to her by Mr. Gauvrean,
the Jiisiiee of the I'eaee, that it would be better that she
should become a v.itnei^s for the ('rovvn, 1 ave been illegally
udmitteu by tlie Court.

Upon Ih.s important question, as upon many others, the
jurisprudenee lias been improved, as apjiears by the follow-
ing passage :

" On this subj(»et, (eonfessious) the law has proeeeded to
" a scrupulous nicety, whicl' the good sense of the Judges
" has recently inclined to restrain." (1)

Upon the occasion ol' the decision of the twelve judges in

the <'ase of Regina vs. Raldry, Crown cases reserved of 1852,

Haron Parke is reported to have made the following obser-
vations :

" The decisions to that elTect have gone a long way. Whe-
" ther it would nc have been better to have left the whole to
" go to the jury, if is now too late to incpiire, but I think there
" has be(>n too uuich tenderness lovv'ards prisoners in this
" mattcn*. I confers that 1 cannot look at the decisions wdth-
" out some shame, when I consider what objections have
" prevailed to prevenv the recei)tion of confessions in cvi-
" deuce, and I agree with the observation of Mr. Pill
" Taylor, that the rule has been extendea quite too far, and
" that justice and common sense have too frequently been
" sacrificed at the shrine of mercy." (2)

[1] Diokeiison's Guide lo the Quarter Sessions, by Tiill'ourd, p. 524, otii Lon-
don t".d.
(2) XII. EiikI. Ropoils in Law nml Equity, for 1852, p. 598.

This serves to explain some of the older fxnthorities such
as they are found in Starkie : " Where a ronl'cssion has
" once been rendered by i<uch means, all subsequent admis-
" sions of the same or like facts must be rejected, for they
" may have resulted from the same influence." (1)

L(;t us continue to exauiine the law upon this subject ; it
is clearly stated in the following passage :

" The only questions in thest cases, are, was any promise
" of favor, or any menace or undue terror, made use of to
" induce the prisoner to confers. And if so, was the prisoner
" induced by such promise or menace &c., to make the con-
" fession attempted to be given in evidence. If the judge
" be of opinion in the affirmative upon both these questions,
" he will reject the evidence. If on tlie contrary it appears
" to him from circumstances, that although such promises or
" menaces were held out, tiiey did not operate upon the
" mind of the prisoner, but tiiat his confession was volunta-
" H\y made notwithstanding, and he was not biassed by such
" impressions in making it, the judge will admit the
" evidence." (2)

In the case under consideration, a constable by the name
of Chabot having arrested the female prisoner, took her to
hh, house where Mr. Gauvreau, a Justice of the Peace, told
her she had better become a witne<?s for the Crown ; about
twenty minutes aiterwards Mr. Gauvreau left, without the
prisoner having made any admissions, but subsequently she
made admissions to Chabot, which she repeated the next
day, while he was taking her to Kamouraska. The Court
refused to receive those admissions, because the suggestion
of Mr. Gauvreau had been made in the presence of the cons-
table, who was a person in authority over the prisoner.

[1] 3d Starkie's Evk'. 49.
(2) Archboia, p. 112.

The circumstances under which tiie admissions to Dr.
Dube were made, were altogether different ; ( 1) the question of
the admissibility of this confession became one of great deli-
cacy — It was received in evidence under the following
authority, which goes furthe r than was necessayr to admit the
confession made to Dr. Dube : " If after the promise has been
" made such circumstances should take place as to induce
" a presumption that a subsequent confession has not been
" made under the influence of that promise, there appears to
" be no reason for rejecting the confession, because the
" person to whom it is made is the same to whom the
" former confession was also made." (2) Dr. Dube was
not the person to whom the admissions of the female
prisoner were made in the first instance, he was a stranger,
invested with no authority, who had made neither promises
nor threats.

The Court had to choose between the opinion of Starkie
above cited, and the last quoted from Roscoe, which is more
consonant with the more recent decisions indicated by Tal-
fourd, who states that, in matter of confession, tlie law had
proceeded to a scrupulous nicety whic'' the good sense of
the judges had ^-ecently inclined to restrain

In August, 1843, the Court of Queen's Bench, ai Quebec,

presided by Sir James Stuart, Chief Justice, tried one .lacob
Cline, upon an indictment for stealing a sum of money from
his master, Dr. Racey, who proved the theft, stated that
having suspected the prisoner, he said to him that, if he would
return him his money, he would not move further in the mat-
ter, upon which the prisoner made an admission. The pri-
soner was then taken to the police station. A second witness,
Robert Russel, proved tliat, while the prisoner was in the
police station, having been questioned touching the matter,

(1) Sou the evidence ol Dr. Dube, as reported anU p. 22^.

(2) Roscoe's Evicl. p. 43.

m 'i

lie liad made a second confession. It is right to observe
lliat flie witness Russel was a person in authority, being
then the Cliief of Police, but he had neither threatened IIk;
})risoner nor had he made him any promise. The Chii>f
Justice was of opinion that the confession made to Russel
was admissible and suiFicient 1o convict the prisoner.

The decision of the Court at Kamouraslca is manifestly
analogous to the case of Cline.

FOURTH POINT.

That as 1o the prisoner Berube, there w^as no sulFieient
proof of bis participation in the crime charged.

After having thus answered tlu* objecti.ms made to lln^
admissibility of the hearsay evidence, and of tlie evidence
given by the boy Nareit^^e Tlierianlt and by Dr. Dnbe, in
relation to the eonfession of the lemale prisoner, it is neces-
sary that this fourth and last point should be examined in
order to ascertain upon what evickMiee the Jury, who are the
,nly Judges of th'^ sutlicieiicy "• insulHciency of such evi-
dence, relied, in returning a verdict of guilty against both
the prisoners.

The first cjuestion to be solved was whether the deceased,
8o])hie Talbot, the hrst wife of the prisoner, had fallen a
victim to poisoning. Now this important fact, indeed the
principal one in the case, was ))r()ved beyond the possibility
of a doubt by the evidence; of live medical men. Their
evidence is not conjectural, it is positive and corroborated
by the presence of arsenic in the stomach t)f the deceased
as ascertained by Doctor Jackson, by means of the KiMiich
test, and by Doctor Desjardins, who states in his evidence,
" I took one of those small white points, T jilaced it upon a
" live coal and it remained solid and ca])able ( '' being
" crumbled. Hence 1 inferred that it was a mineral .sub-

" Stance." The presenoe of phosphorus in the stomach ol
the deceased was ascertained by a sirong smell oi" garlic
and went to (;onlirni the o|)inion ol' the niedicaJ men : their
evidence affords an opportunity of citing a judicious obser-
vation made by Roscoe :

" Upon this subject (proving murder by poison,) in genc-
" ral it may be taken that where tlie testimonies of puofes-
'' sional men are affirmative, they may be safely credited,
" but where negative, they do not apjiear to amount to a
" c!isprt)of of a charge otherwise establislied by strong
" and independent evidence." (1) Nevertheless it is object-
ed that there was no examination of the brain, or ot the
si)inal marrow or of the hearty (2) again the small quantity
of arsenic found in the stomach is remarked upon, and
lastly it is observed that the w'*- oi Elie Gagnon had not
identified the body of the decease d. It must be recollected
however that Doctor Desjavdins, who knew lier well, having
attended her during illness, recognized and identified her as
well by the general cast of her countenance as by a scar which
she bore upon her face.

It is to be observed that the evidence of the medical men
is corroborated in a remarkable manner by the confession of
the female prisoner to Doctor Dube. (3) The Judge in
commenting ui)on the evidence observed to the Jury that it.
was necessary to seek the proof of Berube's guilt, in
the testimony of Nareisse Therianlt, Genolfe Theriault,
Philomene Boule and Jean Baptiste Morin.

There is abundance of strong presumptive evidence to
shew that the two prisoners had a conmion interest in re-
moving the obstacle to their union ; tliis presumption is ren-

(1) Roscoo oil Kviilcnce, tit;")

('2) This is an oaiission of the a'porior ; the heart was oxamineii, aiul louiiJ
ill its natural slate.
(.'<) See Doctor Dubc's evidence *'//;»/«, page 227.

ill:

t,i;

dered stronger by iho fact that the body of the deceased had
scarcely left the house to be carried to the place of interment
when Berube. brought the female prisoner to his house
to take care of his children, and as shewn by the evidence of
the physician having charge of the Gaol at Kamouraska, it
must have been but a short time after the interment of the
deceased, Sophie Talbot, that the female prisoner became
with child, which child was born in Gaol, and is not disa-
vowed by the prisoner.

In order to understand the whole of the transaction, it is
necessary to look further back. Joseph Berube, the prisoncsr,
had a lot of land in the fourth range of Me Verte ; lie had
been residing there with his wife for a number of years,
when some three or four years before the trial, Uliich
took place iu November 1852, he imdertook to clear a
new land in the township of V^iger, a distanct; of nine
miles from his land in the fourth range; at that period,
there was no other house jn this settlement, l)ut that of
Augustin Theriault, the father of the female i)risoner. Berube
worked during the day upon liis land, and in the evening
he slept at Theriault's. Even at thai period two witnesses,
Edouard Pelletier, and Solomon Marquis, observed the prefer-
ence which the prisoner manifested for Cesaree Theriault.
Pelletier says he had seen the prisoner laying across Cesaree
Theriault's bed. Marquis states that the ])risoner occasionally
conversed with Cesaree Tlieriuull and that he seemed to
be fond of her. In 1851, the prisoner's late wife spent
the summer upon the laud of the fourth range, and her hus-
band worked at his establishment in the township of
Viger. He would go down to tiic fourth range on Sa-
turday and would return on tin; Monday. One day,
somewhere about the latter end oi September, the deceased
had gone to the township of Viger and had come down again ;
she fell ill, " she complained and the next day she threw up,

" she then said ihat she had pains in her body and that she
" was sick at the stomach, she was ill in this way, for some
" three or four days." The witness, Felieite Pelletier, who
relates these facts, says : " that after suifering for sometime
" she would throw up ; this continued for a couple of days ;
" the ensuing day or the third day, her husband came to see
" her, she did not throw up in large quantities, it was
" phlegm more than anything else. J believe that about
" a forthnight afterwards she returned to the township."

At that period, this new settlement consisted of the family
of Augustin Theriault, the hoHse of Joseph Berube, the
prisoner, which was upon the neighbouring farm to The-
riault's, and on the other sid(? was the house of Fabien
Boule. Augustin Theriault's family consisted of Cesaree
Theriault, the female prisoner, Genofte Theriault, her sister
and of a boy of the name of Nareisse Theriault, the
natural son of a woman ol' the name of Julie Ouellet
whom this child recognized as his mother, in the same way
as he recognised Cesaree Theriault as his sister. There was
living in the neiglibouring house one Fabien Boule, his wife,
Marceline Beaulieu, and their daughter Philomene Boule
who liave all been heard as witnesses as M'ell as Genoffe
Theriault and Nareisse Theriault.

Genoiie Theriault, in her evidence, slates that preserves
were given to the deceased ; that she died the week after,
and that these preserves had been given bv itie iemale
prisoner, &c., &e. (1)

There are two distinct facts, worthy of notice, in the
evidence of the boy, Narciss(> Theriault, (2) the first of these
facts is the giving of a small box by the prisoner to the female
prisoner at some given period which the witness is unable
to indicate ; the second is the statement h(^ makes of what

(\) See her evideni'H !^upiii p. 215.
(2) See his evidence i'«/)/rf p. 220.

was said in his presence in relation to his mother Julie Ouellet.
ll js I'lirther to be observed that the eliild slates that he in-
formed Genotle Theriault of what had been said before him,
in presence of Philomenc Boule, and a child o( Fabien Boule,
and that he also told his mother. It cannot be presumed that
he was a long time before making these communications ;
and in iact upon referring to the evidence of Genotlij The-
riault, (1) it will be found that in a conversation with her
sister, the female prisoner, she mentioned the statement
made to her by the boy in relation to this box.

Upon i(!lerring to the evidence of Philomem; Boule, (2) it
will be found that, among other things, she says : " Upon
'■'■ \\w Wednesday ))reeeding the death of Sophie Talbot, the
'^ boy Narcisse Theriault, who is now about six years old,
" slated to me and to Genofle Theriault that the ])vi5soncr
"• had given a little red box to Cesaree Theriault, and that
" he thought it was to poison his mother, Julie Ouellet."

Thisevidenc(> has been strongly objected to, notwithstand-
ing the authority to the efl'eet that " the declarations of a
" witness at another time may be adduced to invalidate or
" lonlirm his evidence by showing that he varies inhisstale-
" ments, or has maintained a uniform consistency inhisnar-
'■'■ ration. (3)

It is also to be remarked that in the conversations men-
tioned in this evidence, the one with the female prisoner,
and the other with the prisoner, neither the one nor the other
denies the statements made by the child to the effect that he
had seen the prisoner give a little box to the female })risoner ;
it is true that she denied this in the first place, but admitted
afterwards that she had got a box, but that it was a box of
l)e])peviniius which her beauhad sent her, which was proved

(1) Suind p. 2\l}.
(:?) .Siiprd y. 21 ti.
(3) 1 Chilty's Ciiiiiiiiul Liuv, t')li!'.

to be false ; Am<'il)lc Ouellel or Onellon, having been pro-
duced as a witness, denied llie I'ael upon oalli, al llie same
tinne admitting that he liatl paid attention to tlie I'emalc pri-
soner ; with respect to the prisoner, he is first silent, and
then secretly recpiests, thai nothing may bo said of the little
box; this ocournsd on tlu; Wednesday preceding tlic day
upon which Genofle Theriault took the preserves 1o the de-
ceased, and consequently before any susi)icions existetl
against the prisoner. These precautionary measures of the
prisoner, and the false statement made by the female prisoner
show concert between them, in ado))ting means to prevent
incjuiry with respect to this mysterious box, of which tlie
female prisoner was shortly after to make such fatal use.

It is manifest that the evidence of the boy upon the i\vo
principal facts he was made to speak to, nanu-ly, the giving
of the little lx)X by the prisoner to the female p.isoner, and
as to the contents of the box, is fully corroborated ; for il is
to be presumed tliat the child who slated the Irntli willi
respect to the giving of die box, must have done the
like when he stated that they had said, l/iat l/uij ircoilrd
to make her die bji poison. It is therefoi'e satisfactorily proved
that when the box was givi 11 l)y the prisoner to tlu; female
prisoner, something w^as said of jjoison, and this])ro()f is cor-
roborated by the false statements of the female })risoner,
and the prisoner's recpiest that nothing should b(! said about
it. It is true that the boy understood that the iiitenlii)U
was to kill his mother by poison ; but after events have
shown that his motherwas not in question, Iml that the iiitcn-
tionofthe prisoners was to remove a person, who si uod in
their way, and who in fact was removed by poisoning, il miisi
be recollected that it was the second day after, tow ards
evening, that the female prisoner sent apple preserves lo llie
deceased ; that after eating of these in the evening, she fell
ill the next day, which was a Saturday, and llial she died
the Wednesday following. It has been i)roved llial llieiv

4 : '!■

ilffl

wore no apples or apple trees In the township, the settlement
being of too recent a date : then from whence came these
apples ? The prisoner, upon his defence, proved by his ser-
vant, one Jean Bte. Morin, that the prisoner had given
Morin money to purchase apples and molasses to make pre-
serves ; tliis witness stales that having boiight these things he
gave them to the prisoner, but that he has no knowledge thai
preserves were made with them.

The witness resided upon the land in the fourth range ;
the preserves were made afterwards in the township. It is
not proved anywhere that the deceased had asked for pre-
serves ; it was merely said that preserves would be made for
her. Why did not the prisoner get these preserves made at
his own house, rather than at tlitj house of his neighbour ?

The presiding Judge in commenting upon the evidence did
not follow the order in which it had been produced. He in the
first place read and remarked upon the evidence of the wit-
nesses, who proved the death of the deceased by poisoning, —
namely, the evidence of Marceline Beaulieu, Fabien Boule,
Louis Carou, Jean Bte. Cote and Lambert Ouellet, part of
the evidence of Drs. Dube and Desjardins and of Drs.
Jackson, Marquis and Michaud. He then considered the
testimony atfecting the prisoners, abstaining however from
mentioning the confession of the; female prisoner until the
conclusion of his remarks, observing to the jury, that if they
were of opinion that the confession had been made by rea-
son of what had been said by Mr. (iauvreau to the female
prisoner, they were bound to reject it, and to consider the
case upon what iiad been proved, independently of the con-
fession in c|uestion, which amounted to nothing in so far as
the male prisoner was concerned. That if tliey entertained the
opinion that the confession was a voluntary one, and not
made upon the suggestion of Mr. Gauvreau, it was conclu-

sive evidrnrr against Cesarec Theriaiilt. This confession
madt- to Dr. Dnbr is found in h\» f;videnc»'.

It must be ndiiiitted that llie proof as to Berubt? is entirely
circumstanliiu, and tiiaf it may be viewed by some as having
less weight tlian flie evidence produced against Cesaree
• Therianlt ; but IJiat was not the question. The matter really
at issue was this, was Ijie proof sufficient ; now the jury
were the sole judges of that question. If Berube had claim-
ed his right to sever, he might have had a greater chance of
escaping a condemnation, which has so justly overtaken him
for he would havi* been tried by another jury, before whom
nothing could have been said of the confession of his fellow
prisoner. However the Court and the jury had nothing to
do with the mode of defence adopted by him.

Considering this case with reference to the evidence pro-
duced and the various facts disclosed, it is not extraordinary
that the jury should have declared Berube equally guilty
with the female prisoner.

The following (juotation is deemed applicable to the case ;

" The accumulative strength of circumstantial evidence
" may be such as lo warrant a conviction since more cannot
" be required tlian that the charge should be rendered highly
" credible from a variety of detached points of proof, and
" that supposing poison to hav<^ been employed, stronger de-
" monstrations could not reasonably have been expected
" under all the circumstances to have been produced. (1)

(1) LoJt on Gilbert's livid, p. 352,

AkTKLK ;3.

1 (JRNKHAT, nrVIKW Oh' 'I'lIK t,.\W AND TIIF. FACTS OK
TIIK JJKRUHK I'OISOV fAHK. (I)

III odrriiicj yoit soiiin ol)sorv!i1ions on llif iil)ov(> case, I
ttiay, pcrliiips, he perl or mini?, in your rstiniution, a llmnkless
ollicc, as tlicy nmy lend to renew iho discuHsion of a snl)ject
aliciuly too nineli prolonujed, and to provoke the thunders of
( citain jonrnalisls wliose stri(!lures have already so much
eiilighleiied the publie. It may, however, aH'ord some
jiisliJiealiou (or trespassing upon your induli^enee, tliat the
K.nglish Press, whieh has so fully eanvassed the subject,
has never t,Mv<Mi to the publie any Eiii^lish version of tlie
evidence lo enable them to apply the arguments advanced
on (>illier side. This fu'st and important step has been
ovcrlook(Ml ; but as the aceoinpanyiiig translation has par-
tially supplied thisdesideraluin, a fresh review of the whole
case may not be out of place;.

Some of the writers have comiTietited upon the regularity
offhc proceedings at the trial, in relation to the admissibility
or inadmissil)ility of certain jmrtions of the evidcMice, as
disclosed in the jniblishcd re])or1 (,f the trial in the news-
paper, r.'! ('(ififKh'tn; others upon the insulliciency of the
evidence ju the aiain fealures of the case and the incom-
pliieness < '' l!ie me-lical testiiriuny negatively considered.
(.'(Tlain n(!ws|")n[)er'^ have assailed the (tonduct of the ad-
ministration ill this malc'r, as indicative of a settled policy
lo alirogale, indirectly, the death penalty, fnMU which it is
int'eriiljle that, in their opinion, the facts y>trs6' did not justify
the application of the prerogative of thei-rown in favor of the
coiulenined, and that the sentence of death ought to have
been carried into execution; and \hcn, fdisatif vnfle facCy
and in the same breath, they say that if the evidence was
of such a nature as palpal)ly not to warrant any conviction

(I) I'lL'paied lor the.t^uebec Gazette by a geulleman oi' the profession,

(iLall, (hy which hypoihiMical //; ihoy iiisinnalp Ihal siifh
was ilM characttM-,) ihr prisoners nnghf lo have received a.
fre(; pardon.

The case is snroly not so mystifinl as not to he sns-
repiihl(« of some dear and distinct view; — it must tieccssiirily
be classed under some one of the following: first, it was
one in which the Law ouglit to have been allowed to take
its course; or secondly, one in wliieli the exercise of the
jirerogative was obviously called for, in order to temper
justice with mercy by a commutation of the punislunciit,
witlumt reference! to the nature or the degree of such com-
mutation ; or lastly, it was one in which, by reason that the
accused had not had a fair trial, or that there /as no evidence
whatever to warrant a conviction, a free pardon ought to be
granted. To those who arc of opinion that the numerous
commentators upon the Beruhc Trial, and the pro))riety of
the commutation of the sentence, have each adopted one
distinct, intelligible view of the case, followed up I)y a
clear and consistent line of argument in illustration of such
view, the following notice will be deemed a work of supere-
rogation. To those who have studiously kept the i)ublie in
the dark by arguing every possibles contradictory phase of
the case, any attempt at a plain analization of it will bo
highly distasteful, as being calculated to defeat their ol^ject.
Not one of the various critics has taken a stand upon any
well defined ground; yet in the judgment of every candid
and impartial man, the conclusion to become to nuist hv
based upon some of the foregoing categories ; it cannot in-
discriminately partake of all, and hence at onc(> the ne-
cessity and the apology for inflicting upon your readers a
few more observations on this already hacknied case.

Joseph Berube, a man of the age of forty-five, and Ct'saree
Theriault, his wife, of the age of fifteeji or .sixteen, are

-r

charged with the murder, by poisoning, on the 29th October,
1851, of Sophif! Talbot, tlie former wife of Rerube. (1)

The legality and adir'ii^sibility of portions of this evidence
have been very much eritieised, on the grounds :

1. That siatementsmade by the deceased, while not nnder
the apprehension of immediate dissolution, were allowed to
be proved.

2. That hearsay evidence was admitted.

3. That the examination of a child, not conscious of the
obligation? of an oath, was permitted.

Newspapers are not the proucr ch. mel for a fnll discussion
of these points, IVlen cl" legal knowledge and practical
experience, after having made them the study of a life, re-
quire pages for their complet(.' elucidation; it would require
volumes to bring them down to the comprehension of or-
dinary laymen. Editors, wlietlun- lay or professional, forget
that the Poet's advice as '. the Pierian Spring is as ap
plicable to a little laiv as to a little learning- ; and whether
convinced or not, they consider it chivalrous to die game —
in error, rather than to form an exception to the general
obduracy of their class. Calling themselves the guardians
of the lives and liberties of their fellow men, they yet hold
the supremacy of the laws and the purity of the admi-
nistration of justice as ever second, in their estimation, to
the gratification of their political animosity. On questions
of law and evidence wi' must be content with the con-
chisions of those who have written ex professo on the
subject.

1. As to the first objection, it is bas.l upon a total mis-
apprehension of the characK^r of the evidence. There was

(1) For the lactsof lluMMse. we lelbr 1 he reader to the selected portions of
the teatimoiiy included in our rejiort. [Ed.]

no question of " dying declarations" in the case ; none had
ever been made — none were offered in evidence.

2. The description given by the deceased of iier sufferings,
v^hile labouring under disease and pain, is not deemed hear-
say evidence (1). "The expressions of a person affected
*' with bodily pain or illness, relative to his health and sensa-
" tions, have been considered to be in their nature original
*' evidence ; such expressions being ordinarily the natural
" co-sequence and the outward indication of existing suffer-
" ings. The representations of a patient to his medical at-
*' tendant, who has an opportunity of observing whether they
'• correspond with the symptoms to which they refer, appear
" to be entitled to greater weight than if made to an inex.
" perienccd person, and to afford a stronger presumption
" that they are genuine. But although not made to a
" medical man, they oppear to be admissible evidence. (2)

*' Words and writings appear, perhaps, more properly to be
" admissible as part of the yes gcstff when they accompany
*' some act, the nature and objeet or motives of which are
" the subject of inquiry. fn such eases, words are re-
" ceivable as original evidence, on ihe ground that what is
*' said at the tim(; affords legitimate, if not the best means of
" ascertaining the character of such e([uivocaI acts as admit
" of explanation, from those indications of the mind which
" language affords. F^or where words or writings aeeom-
" pany an act, as well as in the insraiices bei'ore considered
" when they indicale tlic state of a person's feelings or
" bodily sufferings, they derive their credit from the sur-
" rounding circumstances and not from the bare expressions
" of the declarant. And the language -^f persons at or about
" the time of their doing a particular aet, in the same
" manner as their demeanor or gesture, is more likely to be

(1) Philips ami Amos, p. 1201.

(2) Ibid. p. 206.

>•' ■

" a tru<* disc'lo.snre (if \vhal was really passing in Then
'' minds, than their suhseqnent state iiients as to ih<'ir in-
" tent ionsi even it sneh stuteinenis would not be e\tliided
" on other groundis/^ (I)

" VVIicnever the bodilvor mental ieflings, ol an individual
'' are material lo be proved, the usual expressions ol , such
'- feelings, made al llie time in question, are alx) original
"• evidenee, and whether they were reril or feigned, \> foi

" the Jury to determine, ,., So also the repre-

" sentatious by sueli a person <>[ t!ie nature, syniploms iun\
" t'ifeels of the mataiiy uiiiter which lu^ is lal)oring al the
" time, are received as origin;d eviilenee. If made to a
'' medical uttendanl, they are of greater weight as evidence,
"■ but if made to any other person, they are not on that
" account rej(>cted." (J)

3. Tlie objection as to the admissibility of the child is one
Avhich does not so much depeml upon positive authority as
upon the discretion of the Judge after an examination of the
witness. (3)

" But in respect to children there is no precise age, within
" which tlu^y are absolutely excluded on the presumption
" that they have not suHieicMit understanding. At the age
^' of fourteen, every person is pn^sumed to have common
t' discretion and understanding ui)<il the contrary ajipears,
c' but under that age, it is not so presumed ; anti theri'fore in-
'' quiry is made as to the degree; of understanding which
" the child, ofTered as a witness, may possess ; and if he
" appears to have sufficient natural intelligence,' and to have

(1) firconleiif Ev. § li I, Hearsay.

(2) Creenloal'Ev. § lit, dI the relevancy nt Ev.

" liiit in liials l)y .lury, i I is I lie jirnvinfe of the

" piesidiu',' Jiidu'e lo delennino all <|ii( stions on the inlmissihiliiy ol evidence to
'• the Jnry, as well as lo iiislrucl lliem in the i ules ol law, hy which it i.s to he
'• weijihed. Wlieilier tlu'ie is any e\ idence or not, i.s a (piesiiou lur the .Indsje ;
" whether it is snflicient evidence, is a ((ne.slion lor the Jury."

(3) 2 Greeuleal, Section 367 i). 4t)4.)

/ *^'

7 >'

'I been so iii^tmctcd as locomprnhpiicj the nalurc and effect of
^' ail oalli, lie is admitted to t<'s(ily, whatever his af>e may be.
'' This •xamiiiatioii of \Ur. child, in order to as( erlaia his
" eapaeily to be sworn, is mndv by the judoo, «! his discre-
" fioM, and tho.i-h, as has been jiist, said, no a-e has been
' |)re,is..|y lix,.d within which a chikf shall be conclusively
" |.resnin.-d incapabh', yd, in o,,,. case, a learnctl jiidoc
'■' |M-om|)tJy re|rc,ic,l the dying ,1c.. |;,r,-Uions of ;, child „i' Huir
'^ yeiirsof aiic, ol.srrvin.i,^ that it was ()iiite impossible that
" ;-hc, howc^vcr precocious h.-r mind, c(,tdd have had ihiU
" idcM oraliilun- stale, which is necessniy tomnke su<-h de-
" ••larations admissible. On the other hand, ii is jiot unusual
" '•> receive the testimony of children under nine, and soine-
" iiiaes <-ven under seven years of a,e:e, if they apj)ear to be
'^of su/iici.'nt miderstamlin.o-; and it has been admilled
" even al the age of five years.'" (1)

In the present instance, the answers of the boy N-arcisse
as reported, evidently shew a belief vi' punishment in
anoiliia- worUI as the consequence oi' a (hlsc oath. 'J'lu-
(h'-re.' of jnielligcnee exhibited by him during his pr.limi-
nary examination was matter for the eonsideratio]i of th(^
Judge. We must presume that it was snflicient, and the

'• f>!,li!,''''h I ''• ?"'," ' -', -'•."'•''"■'■t' •^"" 'lelormiiiato a-r at wliich tlieoath of a TliiM
_ .11 'I .; IN..,- o l„. ar(r.„Uc.,l or re|.rl,Hl. Yet when- tho ovM<-nco- ol' rl.il,!,-..,.

.. 1,', ' '. 'i'.".' ""' '" ^'' ''■"'"•''• '" "•■•'"' ^" '■'•'"''■'• lh''ii-''vi(leii,-o cru.i,l,l,>,

__ I Kit thorp slioul.l „e some co.u-iure.it testimony of time, plao; a.i.l circ.,,,.-

_^ pwK'o, .1, c.r.lor ,o make out Ih," la.-t : un,t that the ro.ivi.'tia.i slio.ihl „ot

" .liL .•.•tioi'i •' """ "" ' "'"'"I'i'"'''^''' "'■^■"«"tio.. of an iiilaiitimdor y,-ars ol

_ iinpos;,.!)!,. 1o lay ,Iow„ any -o,u„al n.lo o!i tli-. subject aiiplicable to

all cases. A peso., i.iay be lci;ally coinictc.l on such ovu! Mice alo.ic aiul
_• iiMsupiwrt,.,! ; a.ut wliclbcr the accomil of the vvit.u-ss n..p.in.s to be coiro-

Hiiatcil ill a.iy part, or to what .■xtoat, is a ipiuslion cxcliisnvlv tbr ibp lurv
■ to hclctcii.iih.Ml by ihcin 0.1 a i-cvicw of all the circi.mslaiicVs of the ca.J

ami esi.ecially of the maimer in wbidi the child jias yivun liis evidence.''
_^ '■Roscoe, 1^11. '' Subsefp.e.iliy all tho Jiul-es an.-ee,l that a cl.il.i of any
_ -I'i.Ml capableoldisti.iiruishi.i- between i^ood and evil, miirhi: be examined
^^ iif.onoath a.ul that a child .n whalover a-o coubl not bo examiiie.l n.iless

s>voi-n ; tins .s .io\y the ostabbsbed rnle in all cases, civil as well as ci-imi„;,l'
^^ ;';;;' J^'':;"'^''- ">« f'soner i. med lor a capital oHeiicc or ojio of an inierioi'

If)

\M' i

:), v. ;

if '■', ■
■■•■ -It.:'

'i!

Ill

subsequent corroboration of his testimony by other witnesses
relieves the point from any embarrassment. The weight to
be given to his evidence was matter for the consideration of
the Jury. Either they have given credence to his testimony,
or they have deemed the case complete without il.

These points disposed of, how stands the case ?

In the first place it is negatively and conclusively esta-
blished, from the whole tenor of the evidence, that no sus-
picion whatever attached to any other individual than the
two prisoners. Then what are the facts of an incriminating
and suspicious character given to the Jury upon which their
conclusion must be presumed to be based ? The death of
Mrs. Berube occurs on the 29th October, 1851, after five
days illness. The two prisoners intermarry two months
after she is consigned to the tomb. On the 22d August fol-
lowing, Cesaree Theriauli is delivered ofa full grown child^
the paternity of which is not made a question, and the birth
of which, inthe ordinary course of nature, points significantly
to till! occurrence of a particular fact sometime between the
16 and 22 November, 1851, — some five or six weeks before
the marriage, and less than a month after the death of the
first Mrs. Berube. In the interval between her decease and
the month o^ April following, suspieions of foul play having
arisen, the body is exhumed on the 2d of that month and a
post murtan examination is had undf^r the tlirection of the
Coroner. At the trial, four Medical men unhesitatingly
depose thr I ]n their opinion her death was caused by poison.
It is needless to dilate on this branch of the ca; 3, the evi-
dence was sncli that the Jury could not possibly doubt or
disbelieve! il. The important inquiry then eonies to be, was
this poison taken aceidentally, or was it administered mali-
ciously, and if so, by .vhom was the foul act committed.

As to the feuiale prisoner, the admission voluntarily made
by her, and proved to be wi*''.out coercion or threat of any kind,

• :i

or the promise of any favour, and properly admitted in evidence
coupled with the other facts brought out in the case, place the
matter beyond doubt. She prepares the poisoned apples •
sends them unasked, with special and peculiar instructions'
for the use of the victim of the plot ; she conceals the suspicious
box and prevaricates about it repeatedly, marri.s the sus-
pected murdeier, and when the atiiiir explodes, and "a Warrant
issues for her apprehension, she is found hidden* in ,t heap
of hay in a neiglibour's barn, and confesses her crime. With
such damning evidence, it would be a waste of timc,_an un-
warrantable reproach .o the Judge and Jury, and an insult
to common sense, to impugn the correctness of the verdict

Then as to the male j^risoner :— The evidence in cases
of murder by poisoning must ever be eminently of a circum-
stantial nature. Homicides by the discharge of fa-e arms,
or the wound from a deadly Aveapon and the like, where
death supervenes instantaneously, can be fully proved by an
eye witness. The crime is begun and consummated, and
the whole tragic scene passes uvued'ceil. In such cases
the fote of the slayer depends solely upon the credibility of
the witness. Xot so in cases of poisoning. The diabolical
design is conceived and matured in secret. The deadly
drug is generally administered by some supposed friendly
hand. It is not the result of an act of violence, the commis-
sion or the consequences of which may transpire by accident.
The death by poisoning constitutes the final and fatal ac-
complishment of a multiplicity of designs and little acts,
formed and executed in the dark, and which might pass
unobserved, were it not for the appalling denouement which
crowns them. To expect that the conduct of the poisoner is
to be marked in traces of blood, as in a case of murder by
violence, established by circumstantial evidence, is to look
for that which never can be had. The more difficult the
nature of the proof, the more closely is everv act and ex-
pression of the accused to be scanned. Even the most

^iTI

I 1

Ivifling nncxplainod incidont in his oonduci, of a natnro to
raise a presumption or a suspicion olguill, and forming part,
of a great chain, is entitled to grave consideration. In the
l)resent instance, tlie absence of any eiibrt whatever on the
jiart of Be rube to jirevent a fatal termination to his wile's
illness, whilst it was his bounden duty, and that he had it in
his power to make strenuous excM-tions to that (Uid, rises in
judgment against him. In September, 1851, he is in <iries1
«)f ars(>nic to poison rats where none existed ;— h(^ declines
talving t>mi/h's Exterminator, \\\\w\\ is expressly prepared
for that purpose, because it is too dear ;— the price w s lirmltj
■pence ! lie brings a small box resembling that containing
Smith'a Exlermimlor, to the female prisoner, wlien there is
no (uii- in the house with her but, a child, and speaks ol
Idllhi!^ soma one hij poison. The youth of the witness, thougli
it weakens his testimony, tends to confirm it in this, tliat it
accounts for lierube's want of caution in communicating his
instructions to his accomplice. \W is i)roved to have em-
ph)yed ills s(Tvant, residing some miles from his own
house, to purclrase api)les and molasses for him in the
beginning ofOctobcu-, for tlui purpose of making })reserves
lor'his wife ; which, however, he never brings to his house,
nor even procures to be made, unless they l)e tliose proved in
the case as the medium for conveying the ))oison which was
to end iier d.'iys. Theni W(>re none to he had at Thcriaulfs,
■.ini\ no one knows when- else llicy came from. Ilisac.
complice miikes apple preserves at a brook (li-l:nit :iboMl an
acre find a linlf from her fuller's house, in which hist she
ccrtiiinly might have made tlieni jnore conveniently. It is
not often we hear of preserv(>s being made in the fu'lds in
Ihe cold season at the end of October, anil within n stone's
throw (.fa dwelling house. Dm'ing the process of making
iIk' preserves, lie passes by the brook withont speaking to, or
even appearing to recognize his luture wife The preserves
are sent to his house by the female prisoner, with directions of

a singularly procautionary eharactor, for the use of 1 he un-
forfunato invalid, who did not expect them, who had never
solicited them ; and when she expresses to him iier very
Jiatural surprise at this act of gratuitous attention, he infers
an insinuation on lier pail, which her words do not certainly
convey, and exclaims: "Do you think they would be
^^' wicked enough to put any thing in them which could
" harm you !" Some dust or filth is smd, though not seen
to liave got, no one icnows how, into the bowl containing the
preserves, which ho )n-ofesses to remove by inserting his
own soiled lingers into them, and this little pantomine ter-
minates by the sick woman desiring that they should be
llirown away. The bowl was then in his hands, having
taken ii from his wife's, and he then casts away that small
but important renuiant, which would have gone far to
establish his innocence, or rivet his guilt. After eating of
Ihe preserves she becomes seriously ill, with violent and
<;ontiiuied reaching, .severe bowel complaint, and s])itting
and vomiting of bhjod, for which, instead of sending for a
medical man, he i)rocures and administers hut mm punch
which he prepares himsell', liaving something else in his
hand which he i)uts into it, and then gives it to the suffering
invalid. During the five days of her severe and painful
dlncss we do not hear much of him ; he appears not gene-
laily to liav(> been absent from th(> house, but is not often in
at1cndan(!(> at the sick bed ; but whenever it is necessary to
prepare hot rum punch for a woman vomiting blood, ox to
superintend lln- disposal oCiui insignificant and valueless
<|uautily of hnioi/ioiis appli; preserves, lie is o\vy the
pivsidiiig genius. On the l;,si ev-Miiiigol' her life he is away,
knowing thai she is dying, and leaves Ikt Io the Imder care
of her neighbours, Tl<- |)roi;'sses logo in (jnesl ol a niinist<'r
of religion, but .alls :tl MotdeV;, who was at his own house,
and twice at 1'heriault's to ascertain the hour,— an important,
inquiry in the breast ol a mini whose bosom partner for

\^i-^

fifteen years was about to bid adieu to him and to the
world. He probably dislikes deathbed scones. He travels
some miles to ccmmission another person (probably none ot
his immediate neighbours would have gone !) to letch the
priest ; but having the good lortnne to be surrounded by persons
whom hia severe aillictjon does not deprive of their pre-
sence of mind, they dcspaleli a messenger to meet du*
Priest, (though no one but himself could be procured to go for
iiim on the near approach of the closing scene,) to inform him
that it is too late, in order no doubt to save him the fatigue of
a short journey and the pain of beholding a dead body. It
was i)erha|)s just as well that the Priest should not be sent
for until it was too late ; and then of what use was it that he
should see tlie body after death ? — Priests are dangerous
witnesses , they sometimes possess a knowledge of medecine,
and are generally quick sighted and deeply conversant
with the springs of human action. During his wife's illness
the future Mrs. Berube is not seen but once at the sick bed,
but is a frequent visitor while her remains are still lying at
the house. On the day of the funeral, after the body has
started for its final resting place, she returns, and Berube,
who still lingers there, converses a good deal with her, but is
not heard. He tells her, however, that he is about to proceed
downwards for the funeral and begs of her to take care of
his children, who happen respectively to be of the ages of
eleven^ twelve and Ihirleen. On the Wednesday preceding
the Saturday on which his wife is taken ill, he is asked, by lh<i
witness Philomene Berube, ichcd was that, box ivHch he had
given to Cesaree T>i?riault. fie malics no answer^ but some-
time afterwards, uu meeting the witness, he takes her aside
and desires her j'o/ to spealc of that box to anyone. After h's
lyz/e's death, he is asked if it was true that he had poisoned her
as people said ; he makes some kind of answer which is not
heard and hangs down his head. He is then informed that
Germain Talbot had said at his (the prisoner's) father's

house that the preserves which Ce?aree Theriauh had sent to
the deceased had completely turned her stomach {liii avail
tombe sur le rmtr.) Cesarec Thoriault is there, and is silent.
He is afterwards present at an interview between the said
Germain Talbot and August in Theriauh, the father of the
female prisoner, in which the latter holds out threats to
Germain Talbot, and forbids his speaking of the poisoning of
his dsfi'f, and menaces him witli a criminal prosecution.
Berube then says : " We must have him taken up," and on
being afterwards asked by Talbot what he meant by these
words, he says : I mean tliat you are not to spread that
report — "as little as possible." * If you do, it will be a bad
job for you, {ga n'trapas bien.) Add to this, not the shadow
of a suspicion is attempted to be fastened, even by the pri-
soners, on any other individual.

During the trial, not a single solitary redeeming fact o
trait is brought out in favor of Berube. On the contrary his
unfortunate wife is dangerously ill during five days ; he
makes no attempt to procure medical aid, not even the con-
solations of religion, until he knows it is too late ; and before
her dead body is consigned to the tomb, ;ie installs his par-
amour in the place which the former so recently held, as the
protectress of his children. He is in direct terms accused of
her murder in presence of his accomplice ; he hangs down
his head — and she is silent !

Such are the circumstances brought out in evidence against
the elder prisoner, enveloping him in a web of damnin »
facte, unpierced by a single gleam of innocence, or a doubt
of guilt.

If this then be the evident conclusion derived from a mere
perusal of the evidence, with what show of reason or justice
can we underrate or impeach the judgment of those who
possessed the incalculably superior advantage of hearing the

• (.Sic.)

life

cvi(l(MK'o, and somlinizinglhe domonnor of. llie witnospos, as
tliry iiihu'cd llicir lotiinony. 11' llio discussion ot tliis caso
in llic public prints could be JHilievcd lo have been con-
ducted with a single eye to the discovery of truth, and with
an unbiassed desire; to shield two human beings from the
dread sentence of the law, under a strong and sincere con-
viction of their innocence, or even their insuilicicntly as-
certained guilt, the task would be eminently praiseworthy.
IJut the |)arty writers, who have labored lo give the case so
much notoriety, have neither the candour to admit, nor the
tact to conceal, that their sole aim is to vilify iIk; constitu-
tional advis(>rs of the Governor General for having extended
mercy to the condenmed. They impugn the conduct of the
jndge and the jury for acts done by them in the conscientious
discharge of a solemn public duty. They imniate the

Administration for having advised a commutation of the
punishment, ascribing tlieir decision to a settled deler-
iiiination to abolish the death i)enaity, without reference to
llu' justice or injustice of each particular case ; and while
they : re thus so very la'ish of their abuse, they do not
:ittem|'t, nor deem it at all neci'ssary to attempt any niview
of ilic ()ro( eedings calculated to convince a single individtial
outside of the little ))andemonium in which their clumsy
stri(;tures have been concoftted, either that the case; was one
iillerly dfslitule of evidence to sustain the conviction, or that
ii was devoid of any circnmstances cnlculaled lo prtnent
Ihcsclwo individuals from expiating their atrocious crime
on the sealll)ld. At *>ne time, thtiy vvonld seem to uphold the
reguliirity of the pro(;eedings, the sullicieney of the evidence
and ihr justice of the verdict, and they cryalovid for the blood
of the convicts ; at another — they anathematize the witnesses,
the judge and jury, and d<Mnand a free pardon for thcKe nmch
injured victims of judicial and ministerial persecntion, and
insist that instead of being sent lo the Penitentiary, they
ought to be restored to liberty, and \\u' greetings of that com-

I a

mnnily wliicli ihcy have nov(M' (nitrai^od, and from wlikOi llu-y
have been f*(> harshly expoUcd ! !

This laltor nolioa they louiul uinm ihu lael. orciu'taiii ap-
parently inadiiiit^isihic evidon(:(! iiaving been rucoivcd at the
trial. This pica is alfogcthor uuk liable. Were il j)racrL
(.'able under our syslem to have reserved the case l\)r tlw
opinion ~ of ail the Judges, as in Engliuid, the (onvietioii in
the preseii) instanc(«, could not have been set aside upon such
jifrovnid, as ruled in the case of llei,^ vs. 15all, U. U. c. c. I"i5.
Tiie Judges there saiti : "Whether the Judges, on a case
" reserved, would hold a conviction Avrong, on the gronnd
'■'■ that some evidence; had been improperly received, w hen
'' olliiM- evidence had been proi)erly adniilled thai was sulli.
" cient of itself to support th(! conviction, the Judges seemed
"• to think, must depend on the nature; of the case and the
"■ weight of the evidence. If the cast; were clearly made
''out by proper evidence, in such a way as to leavi; no
" doul)tof the guilt ofth(> prisimer in the mind of any n ason
" able man, they ihonght that as then; could not be a, neu
"• trial in felony, such a conviction ought not to be set i;side,
" because some other evidence had Ixmmi given which ongiit
"not t.> havi! been received ; but if the case, without smli
" improper cvichnicc, were not so clearly made out, and tin-
"• improper evidence might be snppox'd to havr hnd an cii('<l
•■' on the minds of the jury, il would l»e ollirrwisf, 'I'hr
'' conviction in lliiscas<' was helil right."

lint the Hcrube cimviclion was not hrouglil u\u\('v the
revision of all the Judges to hi- li-sled on the -Irict rnte^ ol
law and evidener ; it was sul)niitled to ihc deiilii-ratr con-
sideration of the Kepresenlntive ol ihr Sovereiiin, tlic fountain
as well of justice as of nierc\, lor the prn'posi" of dctcrmiiiiM"^
whether such portion-; of the evidence, lliougii not very uin-
terial, )nay have inlbienced the mind'^ ol the jurv and ojjened
the door for a connuntation of the cxtrenie penalty of the

11/8

"'•til

r. 'S !

law. Where, then, is the individual in the community who
under fuch cirenmstances, would impute it as a crime
or a blunder to His Excellency or his* advisers, that on the
smallest donlit being raised on this head, they applied a
principle which is invariably observed in the administration
i»i' Knglish criminal justice, by leaning to tin* side of
mercy and giving the i)risohers the benefit of that doubt. In
any case, however, those who invt>igli against tiie decision of
the Ministry ought to tell us, whether their act be obnoxious
to the charge of being too lenient or too sanguinary. While
they labour from day to day to excite public indigriation
against them, these writers omit to state on which side the
Ministry have erred ; whether they ought to have allowed
the executioner to do his work, or to have let loo.se upon
society two individuals of whose guilt no unprejudiced mind
could entertain a doubt. The proper regard due to the tribunals
of the country, the purity of the administration of criminal
justice up in which our lives and our liberties depend, and
the policy and the wisdom of holding out a salutary example
as a warning to evil doers, are, in the opinion of these
writers, ever second to the gratification of their spleen
and th(;ir hatred towards their political opponents. Without
caring one straw for the fate or the feelings of the unfor-
tunate beings who are the objects of their hollow sympathy,
they continue to buoy up their hopes at the expence of
truth, justice and public morality. Instead of endeavour-
ing to induce an acquiescence in the justice of their
sentence, some remorse for their crime, and a sense of
gratitude for the mercy extended to them, the manifestations
of which coupled with good conduct hereafter, could alone
inspire any just hope of a further remission of the punishment,
these sapient expounders of the law prefer keeping up a
perpetual agitation of the question for political purposes,
even though it should harden the guilty against repentance,
and incite the wicked to the commission of further crimes.

ni^2

To conclude — let all the circumstances of the crime and
the trial of the Berubes be considered in whatever light they
may, and however conclusive the evidence, against the male
prisoner may he deemed, the guilt of the female prisoner, as
established at the trial, is undoubtedly, relatively speaking,
more fully ascertained than that of her older accomplice.
Then, upon such a case being brought under \hv. review of
the authorities, coupled with the objections made to certain
portions of the testimony, which were entitled to consideration
with respect, to Bcrid)^^ though not as regards the other pri-
soner who had confessed her crime, what was, I ask, the
sure and obvious course to be pursued ! What course would
these writers have recommended under such circumstances ?
To pardon or commute the sentence of the elder convict ? To
permit /!?«i who was the sole instigator of the foul crime, and
who had persevcringly and remorselessly brought it to a guilty
consummation — to go scathless, and to send his imforlunatc
dupe, a young woman of the age of sixteen, to the scaffold.
Such a dispensation of mercy would have been met with one
shout of indignation from on(! end of the Province to the
other. On the other hand— immediately to have grunted a free
pardon to one legally and justly convicted upon her own
confession, of the crime of murder, and to another also con-
victed of the same crime, ami who, although he did not
confess, was inlinilely the greater eriminal of tlu^ two,
would have dealt such a blow to the administration of
criminal justice, and v/ould have been such an outrage upon
common sense and decency, as no man would have dared to
defend. Every individual in society capable of forming an
opinion, whose judgment is not w arped by egotism, vanity
or party spirit, and who brings his mind to bear upon
the subject with calmness, and an honest desire to arrive
at a fair and impartial conclusion, must know and in his
heart believe, however much he may pertinaciously assert

thf confiaiy , that ilu- cours<! acioptecl by tfic Governor Ge.
neral urulciall tlir<liiru.,iJti.'soniit! ca^c, was a( once tliJ
itioM wise aiKl flu- niosf jusl, and aissurodJy the mo.st liuiiiam;,
and llial any ofiicr conrso would have been obnoxious to the;
(rios) NCiUHls ob|(M lions,

il I !i.ivr llnis allfin|)l<Hl a. rovu-w ol l|,e BtTube rase and
•|i "k' |»ropri,.ty of (hi. ,-„nnnn(afion, yon an- not (o .snppose
•fiat I !n,v,- donr ^,0 (or ihr pnrpo.s,. nlMchMidin- the adminis-
"•"'•'• >'l th. (iovernmcnioilii.sadvi.scrs. | have nothin.o to
<!<• wilhdirm, no,|,i„u losay loihojn. I know nol and ,an-
xot wiirdici-inyobs.Mvaliousbc palalabh- lo ilirni or nol ■ I
know nol aiKl ,.,.•,. noi whal was //,. vV view of ih.- caso, nor
whal lh<' nio(iv.>swhi<-ha.-liialrd ihcni. I an. bound howi-vcr
i«'Mippo-M )hr>y coinrid,- wii!, ihosc which I havr atlribuled
fothcnnanil by whirh alone I can snpposc any man to be
govenied whoso heart and liead are in the ri-h't place.

\:w}

Quebec, i''ebriiarv, lbb3.

■8

^-1

'"1^"- "WV-^vW?-