The Express.
London, England, 1867-08-12 00:00:00

11 I rt%%4

LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST 12, 1867.

FRANCE.

THE FONTAINEBLEAU MURDER.
(nom oua OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

PARIS, ELLTURDAT intirnia.

•
The Fontainebleau murder case, the first news of
which caused such a sensation in May last, came
on for trial yesterday at the Assize Court of the
little town of Melun, famous for its corn market,
and as the cradle, in connection with corn, of the
Drouyn do Lhuys family. The presiding judge,
M. Dubarle, of the Imperial Court of Paris, re-
ceived upwards of 3,000 applications for tickets of
admission, but as the court cannot hold more than
300 people, he was necessarily obliged to *fuse
most of the applicants. As it was, the notabilities
of Melun, little used to excitement, were on the
qui tire, and many ladies in grand t"ilctle were in
seats behind the bench as well as in the body of the
court.

M. Lachaud appeared for the prisoner ; M.
Dupuy, of the Paris bar, appeared as pantie
cieile to sustain the ar,es.fiun on the part of the
relatives of the murdered Woman. The facts dis-
closed by the indiament and thd 'accusation are
extraordinary and dramatic in the highest degree,
and will give the Fontainebleau murder a place in
the causes eMbres on a level with the cases of
Caataing and Madame Lafarge. The accused, a
woman 35 years of age, born at Sainte Colombe
la Campage, near Evreux, in the department of
the Eure, is named Mathilde Louise Alexandrine
Frigard, tu'e Lebouia. Her father was a respect-
able country doctor, and her husband, M. Frigard,
by whom she has some young children, was a silk
.aercer at Caen, but lately failed. She is a little
woman, with no pretenaions to beauty, high-
shouldered and almost deformed, with thin light
brown hair disclosing many bald places, but with a
face betraying much nervous energy and great
intelligence. On taking her place in the dock, it
was observed that she showed not the least emo-
tion, neither did she throughout the day, except
that her face was frequently suffused with a red
flush. She wore a shabby-genteel dress, coquet-
tishly put on. Her gown—said to be the same she
wore on the day of the murder—was an
alpaca, of a faded yellow colour ; the re-
porters call it fettille marte. Over this was a
black silk mantle. Her bonnet was of the modern
fashion—a little patch on the top of the head—with
a voilet and beads in front. Her kid gloves were
manifestly old, but she frequently pulled down over
them a pair of rather handsome lace manchettes.
Before the proceedings began she tallied frequently
to her counsel, M. Lachaud, and always with a
smiling countenance.
The presiding judge called the attention of the
jury to a plan of the Forest of Fontainebleau which
they would find useful to refer to in the course of
the trial. The indictment, or acts d'aecuaatioa
was thenread. The case made by it is as follows :
The deceased, whose maiden name was Sidonia
Margaret Dussart, was of Belgian origin. She
married a M. Mertens, a carrier, who died at
Boulogne-sur-Mer on January 28, 1861. Since
she became a widow, this woman was very light in
her conduct. Her last residence was in Paris, Rue
de Laval-prolong•Se, where she lived with a M. Bur-
det. Madame Mertens having received the price
of a business which she sold, deposited a sum of
7,500 f. on Marsh 25, 1867 with the Comptoir
d'Escompte, and on May 1 she paid another sum
of 500 f. into Lecuyer's bank. In February, 1867,
Madame Mertens was introduced by a general
agent (agent arafraires) to the prisoner, whose hus-
band had been in the silk trade at Caen, and was
a bankrupt. In December, 1866, the prisoner
came to Paris with only 300 f. in her pocket to seek
her fortune. She made various efforts to
find some one who would advance her a sufficient
sum to purchase a business, and at length she got
introduced to Madame Mertens. Having ascer-
tained what money Madame Mertens possessed, she
resolved to make her serve ber purpose, and, as far
back as the beginning of April, 1867, she said to an
agent d'affaires that she knew a young woman who
had 8,000 f., and that she could turn her round her
finger. Shortly afterwards the woman Frigard
opened negotiations for the purchase of an Italian
warehouse, No. 34, Rue Montholon, belonging to
M. and Madame Perrot. The price agreedupon
was 9,500 f., and a sum of WOOL was to be paid
down. The prisoner must have known that she
could not reckon upon Madame Mertens to advance
her that sum because the latter was about to
,invest her money in the purchase of a lodg-
ing-house, and moreover she had received
unfavourable answers to her inquiries about
the prisoner. Nevertheless the woman Frigard
resolved to get possession of the 7,500 f. which
Madame Mertens had lodged with the Comptoir
d'Escompte. Taking advantage of the familiar
relations established between them, owing to the
huntetues complaisances by which the woman
Frigard aided the irregular life of Madame
Mertens, the prisoner got hold of one of the blank
printed receipts which the Comptoir d'Escompte
had given to Madame Mertens, in case of her wish-
ing to draw out part of her deposit. She filled up
in a disguised hand a draft for 4,000 f., signed it
" Emile Mertens," and on Aprills, 1867, obtained
payment for this draft at the Comptoir d'Escompte
office. A week afterwards, and on April 22, she
paid 1,500 f. to M. and Madame Perrot on account
of the purchase-money of the Italian warehouse.
An expert in hand-writing gives evidence that the
receipt is a forgery, and that the forgery was
committed by the prisoner. The instruction,
moreover, has demonstrated, in spite of the pri-
soner's ase declarations, that she was in posses-
sion at this period of a large sum of money for
which she cannot account. When she came to
Paris she had but 300 f. In the beginning of 1867
she lived miserably by the aid of small loans. But
after April 15 she paid 1,500 f. to the Perrots, sent
300 f. to her husband, bought jewellery to the
amount of 370 f., and spent money freely in dinners,
carriages, and amusements in company with
MadameMertens. It was agreed with the Perrots
that the prisoner was to take possession of the
shop in the Rue Montholon on aM sth, but only
on payment of a further instalment of 3,500 f. on
that day. How did the prisoner expect to provide
herself with that sum? By another forgery on the
Comptoir d'Escompte for the balance of 3,500 f. yet
remaining there ; but inasmuch as Madame Mer-
tens could not fail shortly to discover the robbery,
she determined to put her out of the way. The
first act showing the murderous resolution of the
prisoner was the purchase, on May 3rd, of a six-
barrelled revolver and a box of cartridges at Lefan-
cheux's gunshop. She admits that she loaded the
revolver as soon as she bought it. On May 5 she
solicited and obtained from the Perrots an enlarge-
ment of the time for paying the 3,500 f. from May 5
to May 9. By the latter day her crime was accom-
plished ; Madame Mertens laid murdered in the
depth of a hollow in Fontainebleau Forest,
and while nobody knew what had become
of her, the woman Frigard got possession
of all her money, and completed the
purchase of the shop from the Perrots. What fol-
lows will show by what means the prisoner
achieved this result. After the 15th of April her
attentions to Madame Mertens redoubled. She
took her out constantly to restaurants, gave her
delicate dinners, and induced her to drink wines
which always brought on a strange kind of drowsi-
ness. On May 7 she proposed a trip to Fontaine-
bleau, safing that a little change would do her
good. The two women arrived at Fontainebleau

at seven in the evening of that day, and passed the
night at the Hotel de France et d'Angleterre. A
letter written by Madame Mertens to aM. Las-
serre, dated Tuesday, May 7, at eleven in the
evening, leaves no doubt as to the object of
the journey in her mind. The next day,
May 8, at 7 a.m., the two women took
a carnage for a ride in the forest. The
coachman took them, according to his own
idea of the spots they would like to see,
to Mont-Chauvet, the Solle Valley, and finally to
Franchard, where there is a restaurant. There, at
half-past ten, they discharged the carriage and
'ordered breakfast. Madame Mertens was in high
health and spirits. At about half-past twelve,
after having walked about in the environs of the
restaurant, they asked their way to return to Fon-
tainebleau on foot. They paired by the Bosquet-
du Roi, and were lg.t sight of at the cross-roads of
the Croix-de-Franchart. At about 4 o'clock the
woman Frigard returned alone to the Hotel de
Franca et d'Angleterre. She inquired if her
friend had come in, and on being answered
in the negative, said she had lost her
in the forest. She then said she should
doubtless find her at the railway station, and
added, it was not the first time they had parted
company when out together. With a view of
making believe she had no money upon her, she
tikfor the address of a jeweller. M. Prat's
ras mentioned to her, and there she obtained
40 franca on the deposit of a brooch. M. Prat
took her name and address from the envelope of
a letter which she showed him. On her return to
the hotel she ordered dinner, but ate scarcely any-
thing, and seemed absent and uneasy. She paid
the bill, amounting to 32f. 15c., and while paying
it the waiter saw a bank note of 100 f. in her porte-
monnaie. She left for Paris by the quarter past sic
train. For several days following persons going
along the Mont Fessart road, leading to the road
de Fleury au Bouquet-du-Roi, observed, at a point
distant about three kilometres from Fontainebleau,
a woman lying on the grass, about twenty-
five yards off the road, her bead con-
cealed by a parasol. At last, on May 13,
some one who bad seen her in the same position
more than once, suspected something wrong, went
off the road to see closer, and found a corpse in a
state of decomposition. The body was lying on
the back, the, right, hand clutched a handful of
grass, which seemed to have been torn up in the
agony of dying convulsions. The face, eaten by
worms, was frightfully disfigured. This corpse
was that of Madame Mertens. She was recog-
nised by her dress, and several other signs, as one
of the two women who came to the hotel at Fon-
tainebleau on May 7. She had on hers gold chain
and several jewels ; but her portemonnaie, in which
there was at least 300 fr. when she left Paris, con-
tained only ten centimes. Her keys—gry of
her lodgings and the key of the strong bo hich
she kept her money and papers—were ' The
position of her bonnet, gloves, and fan showed that
death must have surprised her in her sleep. The
medical men appointed to examine the body report
that the death was not natural. The tongue was
swollen and squeezed tightly by the teeth. There
were eochymose spots on the pleura, and sanguine
effusions on the anterior part of the stomach. The
conclusion from these symptoms is that 'she must
have been suffocated by a simultaneous pressure
on the neck with the hand and on the epigastrium
with the knee. The state of the undigested food
in the stomach showed that the assassination must
have taken place about an hour lifter her repast
at the Franchart restaurant. Her companion was
easily found in Paris thanks to the address given to
the jeweller Prat. In answer to the first questions
put to her the woman Frigard produced an
alleged partnership deed, executed between her
sad IlisaMestens, bb xistue of which the after
was to advance her a sum of 5,000 f. for the pur-
chase of the business in the Rue Montholon.
She pretended that on May 7, before going to Fon-
tainebleau, Madame Mertens gave her a draft
signed for 3,500 f. on the Comptoir d'Escompte.
She did indeed cash a draft on the Comptoir
d'Escompte, and with the money so received she
paid the instalment to the Perrota on May 10th.
Besides this alleged deed of partnership, which ,
singular to relate contained a receipt for the 3,500 f. i
signed by the prisoner, and also a receipt from the
agent d'affaires Barielle, there were found in the
prisoner's possession the receipt of the Comptoir
d'Escompte, given to Madame Mertens on March
29th, acknowledging the deposit of 7,500 f. two
blank forms of receipts with Madame Me;:tens'
name written at the top, and also the receipt of
the banking house Lecuyer for the 500 f. de-
posited by Madame Mertens on May Ist. The
revolver and cartridges bought on May 3rd were
also found in the prisoner's lodgings. The facts
that took place were these :—After having strangled i
Madame Mertens in her sleep, the prisoner took
out of her portemonnaie the gold and the 100 f. note
which it contained. She also took her keys. On
her return to Paris in the evening of May 8, she
went at once to Madame Mertens' lodgings in the
Rue Laval, walked upstairs without being noticed
by the concierge, let herself in, opened the strong
box, and took out the receipts and papers found in ;
her possession. On that very evening she told the I
Parrots that she bad the money she was to pay to
them, but did not show it to them. The next day,
May 9, she called at the house in the Rue Laval,
and asked the concierge whether Madame Mertens ;
had come home, saying at the same time that she ;
had parted company with her in Paris, giving a
rendezvous for the next day. On that 9th of May
the prisoner presented at the Comptoir d'Escompte
a draft signed "Veuve Emile Mertens" for 3,500 f.,
and received the money. On May 10 she took pos-
session of the shop in the Rue Montholon, having
paid through the hands of Barielle, the agent
d'affaires, the 3,500 f. due to the Perrots. The
experts attest that the deed of partnership, the
alleged duplicate of which is nowhere to be found,
was forged by the prisoner. The signature,
" Sidonia Mertens," and the words " read and
approved" preceding it, are forgeries, and in the
handwriting of the prisoner. In order to struggle
against the evidence which accuses her the pri-
soner has introduced on the scene an imaginary
personage, to whom she gives the name of Williams.
According to her Madame Mertens only went to
Fontainebleau in order to meet this Williams. They
did meet him, the prisoner says, near the Fran-
chart restaurant ; she withdrew in order to leave
Madame Mertens and Williams alone ; and not
seeing anything of them after an hour and a half's
waiting, she went back alone to Fontainebleau.
By incredible efforts of imagination the prisoner
endeavours to make out that this Williams was the
author not only of the murder, but of the forgeries.
Now, no trace of any such individual can be found
at Fontainebleau ; and, moreover, the prisoner
was seen with Madame Mertens alone in the
forest, at a spot beyond that at which she says they
met Williams.

The rest of the aete d'accusation contains formal
charges of murder and forgery with reference to the
articles in the Code Napoleon under which the
indictment is framed. The examination of the
p-isoner by the presiding judge occupied several
hours, and, as usual in French trials, much extra-
neous matter was entered into. The substance of
her statement, in answer to his questions, was as
follows :—Had been in the habit of travelling on
her husband's business, who was a silk mercer.
Had two children that she loved dearly. Her hus-
band was good-tempered, and very good to her.
(The judge here said it was only due to the pri-
soner to say that he had heard a very good charac-
ter of her. Her conduct as a woman till she came
to Paris had been beyond reproach.) If she had
been accused of interfering too much in her hus-
band's business, it was because, after his failure,
she thought the official assignee bore hardly upon
him, and she had remonstrated. Had had some
[ disputes with her mother about her father's