"The error of his condemnation arose from the mistake of the
witnesses--from the fatal resemblance to one of the culprits not
apprehended. Nothing gave reason to suspect at that time the cause of
the error in which the witnesses had fallen."

We beg to observe that the whole trial was conducted in a slovenly and
shameful manner. A man is condemned on the deposition of
witnesses;--witnesses, be it observed, of such dulness of perception,
and such confidence in their notions, that they persisted in declaring
Guesno to be one of the culprits as well as Lesurques. Yet the _alibi_
of Guesno was proved beyond a doubt. How, then, could the jury, with
this instance of mistake before their eyes, and which they themselves
had condemned as a mistake by acquitting Guesno--how could they place
such firm reliance on those self-same testimonies when applied to
Lesurques? If they could convict Lesurques upon such evidence, why not
also convict Guesno on it? Guesno proved an _alibi_--so did Lesurques;
but because one foolish friend perjured himself to serve Lesurques, the
jury hastily set down all his friends as perjurers; they had no evidence
of this; it was a mere indignant reaction of feeling, and, as such, a
violation of their office. The case ought to have been sifted. It was
shuffled over hastily. A verdict, passed in anger, was executed, though
at the time a strong doubt existed in the minds of the judges as to its
propriety!

Neither the Directory nor the Consulate, neither the Empire nor the
Restoration, paid attention to the widow's supplications for a revision
of the sentence, that her husband's name might be cleared, and his
property restored. In vain did M. Salgues devote ten years to the
defence of the injured family; in vain did M. Merilhou, in an important
_proces_, warmly espouse the cause; the different governments believed