The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-29 00:00:00

The Late Trial for Attempted Murder in

France.

The acquittal of M. Armand at Aix, when tried
on the charge of attempting to murder his coach.
man, Maurice Roux, suggests to the France the
subjoined reflections :—" A man happened to exist
holding an honourable position ; he was wealthy,
beneficent, and honoured with the esteem and con-
sideration of his fellow-citizens. One day it came
to pass that an evil report was circulated about ac-
cusing this man of an atrocious crime—namely,
that he had attempted t) murder his servant,
and with a superabundance of cruelty which
added to the horror of the deed. Who was
the accuser ? The servant himself, who pretendeg.
to have been his master's victim. What
was the object of this cowardly attempt? No one
knows. Under what circumstances did it cccar
Was there a quarrel with high words and blows on
both sides? No one can tell. Oa this denuncia-
tion M. Armand was arrested ; a protracted inves-
tigation followed; and ever since the 7th July last,
the accused hes nidergone all the sufferings of pre-
ventive imprisonment with the rigorous formalities
which examining magistrates have the right to
enforce. The passions of the public were roused,
and it was found indispensable to remove the trial
to a distant department in order that the accused
and his judges might be placed in a more impartial
medium. At last, after eight long months,
justice gives her award. He who was the object
of so much rigour, prejudice, and public passion,
is solemnly acquitted. It is no duty of ours to
search the consciences of the accused and his accusers
for the solution of mysteries which are known to
God alone; but public opinion has taken a deep
interest in the various incidents of this drama ; and
now that it has resulted in a verdict of not guilty,
we think that it offers a lesson which ought not to
be given in vain." The lesson in question is that
the Armand trial furnishes the strongest argu-
ments against the system of preventive imprison-
ment now acted on in France, since here is a
man solemnly declared innocent by a jury of
his countrymen, who for eight months had to
undergo all the bodily and mental torture in-
cidental to close confinement for so lengthened a
period. Hence, argues the France, nothing can be
more urgent than to reform the French penal code
in the part relative to preventive imprisonment.

But there is another portion of the trial which
perhaps will be even more commented on than M.
Armand's imprisonment—the decision of the Court
the day after his acquittal, whereby the man pro-
nounced not guilty the preceding day, has to pay
20,000 fr. to Roux as damages for having inadvert-
ently given him a blow. The Court declared that
it acted in virtue of Art. 1,382 of the Code Napo-
leon. On referring to that enactment, we find that
it runs thus :
" Any act whatever of a man that causes damage to
others, obliges him by whose fault it occurs to repair it."
In England, this supplementary sentence could not
be well comprehended, as the decision of the jury
would have terminated the case by affirming the
prisoner to be either innocent or guilty. In France
the practice is different, and the Constitutionnel
gives on the incident the following explanation,
which, however, reads very like an apology:—
" It is proper to add, in order to explain this result,
that, according to the law, the Court is not bound by
the verdict of the jury; in this sense, that, although
the latter has set aside the criminality, the former
may consider the fact as proved, and declare the
author responsible in a civil point of view. More-
over, the negative verdict of the jury only bears on
the [culpability, and does not pronounce on the
materiality, of the fact. A person accused may be
the author of the act with which he is charged, and
nevertheless not be guilty. According to the letter
of the law, public and civil action are entirely dis-
tinct, without influence one on the other, and may
even be brought before different different courts.
The decision come to by a Criminal Tribunal does
in any way bind that which may take place be-
fore the civil jurisdiction."