ing the error. The commissary of police of Coutras, M. Nadal, was charged with verify ing, quietly, the statements made by the older Lesnier. This skilful officer for five months secretly collected evidence, until it seemed to him that any further proceedings would put the guilty to flight. It was then the 16th of August, 1854. M. Charandeau decided to make a sudden and unexpected examination of the entire commune. For four days and four nights, accom panied by the brigade of Saint-Medard, which at the first moment had isolated and carefully watched the principal witnesses, he interrogated the inhabitants, who were taken by surprise and utterly unprepared for this brusque visitation. One of the witnesses heard by him, one Milon, proved an alibi for old Lesnier at the time of the attack on Daignaud, and showed that this pretended attack was a wicked lie. This Francois Milon stated to the magis trate that when Daignaud and he had been called to testify before the Court of Assizes, being together in the witness-room Daignaud said to him : " Is it true that you saw old Lesnier in the evening at the hour I was attacked on the road?" "I saw him, and not only saw him taking supper with his wife, but he invited me to sup with them." "Well," replied Daignaud, " there is no need of your saying anything about it; I will say that I recognized the son, and not the father." Another witness had heard this conversa tion, and repeated it in almost the same words. Louis Gauthier swore that a few days be fore the judgment, having had occasion to talk to Daignaud concerning the affair, he said to him : " How could the Lesniers have attacked you on the 21st of November at about seven o'clock, when at that hour the father was supping at home and the son was at the house of Catherineau? " Daignaud appeared embarassed at the question, and replied in a pensive tone, " Do you believe it?" After an instant's reflection, he said: "Well! when one has said a thing he must

stick to it." Then making a gesture as if counting money, he let escape these words, more significant than the gesture: "That drives me to do it." Perceiving that this statement astonished Gauthier, " Ah! " said he, "do not mention it to any one; this is be tween ourselves, and if you speak of it I will make you suffer for it." Daignaud himself was then interrogated. The magistrate called his attention to the contradictory statements he had made since his first account of the affair, — at one time he had said that he did not recognize his assailants; at another time that he recognized both the Lesniers, and again that he recog nized the son only. The magistrate con fronted him with the witnesses who accused him of lying; Daignaud persisted for two days in saying that he had told the truth. On the third day he began to stammer and hesitate; finally the truth came out, and he confessed that all that he had said at the trial was a lie. Relieved by this confession, Daignaud stated that a few days after the death of Gay, Pierre Lespagne, to whom he owed fifteen francs for bread, asked him to accuse young Lesnier of having committed the murder. He refused to do so. " At least," said Les pagne to him, "you must pretend that the Lesniers have attempted to rob you. If you do not, I will sue you for what you owe me, and will have your furniture sold." Frightened by this menace, Daignaud played this infamous part. Having once lied, he was obliged to stick to his story. Fortified by this discovery, M. Charan deau turned his attention to Marie Cessac, the wife of Lespagne. It was evident that there had been lying on her part, and it was necessary to make her confess and state who had instigated her. To her also the magistrate first pointed out strange differences in her several statements. Marie Cessac was at first as obstinate as Daignaud; then, like him, she confessed. She was confronted by various witnesses to her infamy, hunted up by the courageous