poisoning, and without conspiracy.

In conclusion, this lawyer made a thrust at the prosecuting attorney
by remarking that, although the splendid reasonings of the prosecutor
on heredity explain the scientific questions of heredity, they hardly
hold good in the case of Bochkova, since her parentage was unknown.

The prosecutor, growling, began to make notes, and shrugged his
shoulders in contemptuous surprise.

Next rose Maslova's lawyer, and timidly and falteringly began his
speech in her defense. Without denying that Maslova participated in
the theft, he insisted that she had no intention of poisoning
Smelkoff, but gave him the powder in order to make him sleep. When he
described Maslova's unfortunate life, telling how she had been drawn
into a life of vice by a man who went unpunished, while she was left
to bear the whole burden of her fall, he attempted to become eloquent,
but his excursion into the domain of psychology failed, so that
everybody felt awkward. When he began to mutter about man's cruelty
and woman's helplessness, the justiciary, desiring to help him, asked
him to confine himself to the facts of the case.

After this lawyer had finished the prosecutor rose again and defended
his position on the question of heredity against the first lawyer,
stating that the fact that Bochkova's parentage was unknown did not
invalidate the truth of the theory of heredity; that the law of
heredity is so well established by science that not only can one
deduce the crime from heredity, but heredity from the crime. As to the
statement of the defense that Maslova was drawn into a vicious life by
an imaginary (he pronounced the word imaginary with particular