.%. 
 
 ^>. 
 
 f^.W^ 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 ^/ 
 
 
 
 
 v.. 
 
 
 It 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 S lis 12.0 
 
 IL25 ■ 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 V] 
 
 %'''^ 
 
 ^>. 
 
 "c^ 
 
 ^> ^ 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 'W 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 V r'rSTER.N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 S\ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 <> 
 
 
 ». 
 
 # 
 
 > 
 

 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 M 
 
 w 
 
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 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 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 
 
 J 
 
 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. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 ■ 
 
'*wim 
 
 m 
 
 
 ' "^ ^*j 
 
 
 
 -^r-. 
 
 •n'- •,'. 
 
 1 .<> '*' 
 

 MM 
 
 
 
 
 
 3<wi. " 
 
 'i!"» ">.*\ ''. 
 
 hS'Z't. 
 
 'X 
 
 4. 
 
 .■»*-''-.\.ii^''2^*'/ "I..**. 
 
 M 
 
 (JP^ 
 
 \ 
 
 nA 
 
 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'^ 
 
 X 
 
 " ^^ 
 
 
 f%m 
 
 '^ > 
 
 -^^ s 
 
 L>.li 
 
 JiL 
 
 ife 
 
 
 B4,f5®^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s 
 
 ^•^Ly. 
 
 T^m. 
 
 
 ■^.>'lt^^v-■^■^*^ 
 
TRIAL 
 
 OF 
 
 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* 
 
 ^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 
 
 if 
 
I 
 
 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. 
 
1^ 
 
 
 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 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 
^ 
 
 '■ 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 
 
9 
 
 ( 
 
 ^ 
 
 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 , 
 
 10 
 
 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. 
 
u 
 
 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 
 
 I' 
 
''l 
 
 ■ I 
 
 :!■ 
 
 if'* 
 
 I 
 
 i i 
 
 If 
 
 12 
 
 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. 
 

 13 
 
 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 
 
14 
 
 
 I'i s 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 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. 
 
 
15 
 
 
 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. 
 
I 
 
 it; 
 
 I I 1 
 
 ■ 1 
 
 III 
 
 16 
 
 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. 
 
17 
 
 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 \ 
 
 18 
 
 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 
 
 
19 
 
 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. 
 
 2* 
 
]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 
 
31 
 
 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 
 
 in 
 
 i 
 
i ' 
 
 I ■ 
 
 ' k ■- 
 
 •I 
 
 "I 
 
 i|i'' 4 
 
 ti 
 
 ill 
 
 22 
 
 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. 
 
23 
 
 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 
 
 I. 
 
 24 
 
 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 
 
T 
 
 : S 
 
 25 
 
 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 
 
 26 
 
 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 
 
 27 
 
 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. 
 
28 
 
 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. ;.'()(». 
 
29 
 
 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 
 
 % 
 
 tl 
 
 30 
 
 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. 
 
31 
 
 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^ 
 
32 
 
 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, 
 
 ^1 
 
33 
 
 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. 
 
S5 
 
 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* 
 
I 
 
 it. 
 
 l\ 
 
 V :■ 
 
 111 I 
 
 ms 
 
 36 
 
 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 
 
37 
 
 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. 
 
38 
 
 11 
 
 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. 
 

 
 39 
 
 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 , 
 
 40 
 
 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 
 
41 
 
 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. 
 
42 
 
 U 
 
 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 ■- 
 
43 
 
 "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 
 
 •<,.#i 
 
 44 
 
 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. 
 
rt 
 
 45 
 
 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. 
 
46 
 
 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 
 
47 
 
 f 
 
 *' 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. 
 
1 
 
 48 
 
 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' 
 
49 
 
 r 
 
 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 
 
50 
 
 ijM. 
 
 ;':1 ' 
 
 i -1 
 
 fr 
 
 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 
 
51 
 
 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. 
 
 4* 
 
52 
 
 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. 
 
53 
 
 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 
 
 54 
 
 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; 
 
 66 
 
 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, 
 
57 
 
 " 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. 
 
 ^1 
 
68 
 
 m 
 
 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!'. 
 
59 
 
 M 
 
 \' 
 
 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 
 
60 
 
 Pi 
 
 I 
 
 
 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- 
 
61 
 
 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, 
 
62 
 
 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, 
 
63 
 
 (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 
 
 S 
 
 64 
 
 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.] 
 
65 
 
 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. 
 
 .5 
 
66 
 
 >•' ■ 
 
 
 m 
 
 " 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 >' 
 
 67 
 
 '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' 
 
 5* 
 
 / 
 
If) 
 
 \M' i 
 
 ^ 
 
 :), v. ; 
 
 if '■', ■ 
 ■■•■ -It.:' 
 
 'i! 
 
 Ill 
 
 68 
 
 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 
 
69 
 
 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 
 
70 
 
 1^ 
 
 11 
 
 ^iTI 
 
 m 
 
 I 1 
 
 w 
 
 
 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 
 
 J 
 
71 
 
 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 
 
'O 
 
 m 
 
 \^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 
 
73 
 
 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.) 
 
u, 
 
 74 
 
 life 
 
 P" 
 
 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 
 
 75 
 
 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 
 
76 
 
 
 I 
 
 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 
 
n 
 
 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 
 

 ii 
 
 78 
 
 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. 
 
 K. 
 
 ■8 
 
 
 4' 
 
 ^-1 
 
 i 
 
 
'"1^"- "WV-^vW?-