The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-04-19 00:00:00

A REMARKABLE CASE,

" When the prisoner at the bar has been sentenced to the
extreme penalty of the law, or sent to serve a long term of
imprisonment, the reflection must sometimes occur to those
who had the disposal of his fate,—Was it absolutely certain
that he was guilty, after all Contrary to all appearance,
could there have been troth In his cdneletent protestations
of Innocence; was it possible that the witnesses forth. prose-
cution had been mistaken or perjured, or was the chain
of circumstantial evidtpre dratted beyond the suspi-
cion of a flaw? There have Icon es.es, as we know, where
men have been the victims of judicial mistakes—where they
have been condemned to a shameful death or a We of an-
guish for offences of which they were as guiltless As their
judge. The truth has been brought to light, and the re.
morseful impression on society has been so strong that the
most conspicuous of these cases have become historical.
But we can with diflinulty call to mind stranger revelations
of judicial blundering than those which have just been made
In a ease which came betrre the Tribunals of the Rhine and
Loire thirty years ago." The preceding remark, are from a
leader in The 2times, in which they introduce the following
remarkable case :

Thirty years ago a mysterious crime was committed
in the nighbourbood of St. Symphorien-sur Coise. A
couple of peasants had been attacked in the dusk of
the evening on their way home from a fair. One was
killed on the spot ; the other escaped with his life,
although he was severely wounded. For a year or more
the agents of the law were altogether at fault; then
their suspicions fell upon two men named Dussucl
and Lionnet. How them men came to be suspected
at all, we hardly understand, and it is remarkable that
from the first the balance of probabilities seemed to
tell strongly in favour of their innocence. The sur-
viving peasant, on whose evidence they were ulti-
mately convicted, hesitated before he swore to their
identity. On the other hand, both bore excellent cha-
racters, nor does there appear to have been any ade-
quate motive suggested to connect them with the
crime. A. for Dussud. two highly respectable wit-
nesses came forward to swear an a/ibi. They asserted
that he had passed the night in • house many miles
away from the scene of the murder. Their testimony
was rejected; nor were the suspected men helped by
their previous good character, except in so far as it
softened their sentences. Mitigated as the sentences
may have been, they were sufficiently severe. Lionnet
was sent to the galleys for life, Driaund for • period of
fifteen years; while the husband and wife who
had sworn to Dussud's alibi were convicted of per-
jury and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.
Lion net died in penal servitude ; the unfortunate couple
who had borne testimony to Dussud'e innocence served
out their time, returned to their home, and died
there under the stigma of their conviction. Dussud
likewise had returned on the expiration of his fifteen
years, and for fifteen more had been leading a life so
exemplar/ asCO reinstate the galley slave in the good
opinion o his neighbours, when the other day an old
man, who lay dying in the hospital of St. Symphorien,
made a solemn confession before a priest and the Coca-
mat of Police. Lionnet d Duesud bad been
unjustly an
y condemned, for it was he, Rambin, who had
actually perpetrated the murder.
If the outlines of • trial which occurred so long ago
are given correctly, it is difficult to conosive so extract.