The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-30 00:00:00

THE ASSASSIN VERGER.
The appeal of Terger came on before the Court
of Cassation yesterday. The proceedings opened
at half-past 11 o'clock, and the crowd was nearly
as considerable as on the day ogthe trial at the
Court of Assize. 111.Legagneur, Counsellor at the
Court of Cassation, presented his report, explaining
the three points on which the sentence was sought
to be reversed, and. which were put forth in the

paper presented by M. Morin in support of the
appeal.

M. Morin, on the part of the appellant,
,hen addressed the Court. The appeal of a

convict sentenced to capital punishment, he
said, was one of those cases which no

member of the bar could refuse to under-

take ; humanity, justice, and the traditions
of the bar imperiously required a defence. Raving
been entrusted by the Court with that difficult
task, be should endeavour to perform it to the
best of his ability, and master the painful emotions
to which it would give rise. He was the more
encouraged to do so as,. on the present occasion,
the only question was one of law, and to that he
should address himself before that Supreme Court,
that judicial Senate, the guardian and protector of
legal forms, the conservator of the authority and
purity of the law. He had nothing whatever to say
on the crime itself of which the prisoner was found
guilty by the Court below. He could only repeat
with every man of sense that it was abominable.
A virtuous prelate stabbed to the heart during a
religious solemnity, and by the hand of a priest
whom he had relieved in his necessities ; who was
in the act of blessing him while he knelt among
the crowd. Even now he (M. Morin) could not
understand how the prisoner could have committed
such a crime—a crime which had produced stupe-
faction among the clergy and among society at
large. It was a crime unprecedented, without ex-
planation, unless by insanity. He did not plead
madness at the moment of the act—that was the
duty of the prisoner's counsel at the Court of Assize,
and that duty he had scrupulously performed.
It was not permitted to him to discuss that ques-
tion after the verdict of guilty had been pro-
nounced. He would maintain that there was mad-
ness now which required a suspension, and he
would be authorised to do so by the fundamental
principles which he put forward in the case of the
appeal of the convict Gilbert, and which were con-
firmed by the remarkable judgments of the Court
of Ca cation on the 25th Jan., 1839 ; for at what-
ever period mental derangement disclosed itself the
judge ought to pause from proceeding against an
unfortunate wretch who had neither the conscious-
ness of his crime and of his situation, nor the sen-
timent of the rights and the duties of defence.
He should, perhaps, be required to produce proofs
and juridical documents. He confessed he had
none—he had no proofs but the scandalous
violence which had outraged witnesses and
judges alike, at the moment they exhibited the
most admirable patience—violence so extrava-
gant as to necessitate the removal of the accused
from the court—of the accused, who was on his
trial for his life. He would not here appeal to his
own personal opinions, nor to the manifestations and
scientific opinions which he constantly met with, be-
cause it was erroneously believed that he was bound,
to prove insanity, so far as ho could judge from pub-
lic opinion. It was only, then, to the examination
of the proceedings themselves that his argumen•
would refer. The question was this—Had the forms
and delays required by the law for the sacred right
of defence been observed since the decision of the
court for putting the accused op his trial, and
which decision had been maintained! This is what
he could, and what he was bound to dispute in the
development of his arguments for annulling the sen-
tence. M. Morin then explained his grounds for
supporting the appeal. The first related to the con-
stitution of the Court of Assize. He admitted that
conformably with the letter of the law, and with
the decree of the Court of Cassation of the 15th of
Nov., 1855, the chief president might preside at
the Court of Assize by retaining as first assessor the
president named by the keeper of the seals ; but, he
asked, was not an ordinance necessary for the sake
of regularity, which should state why the compo-
sition of the Court was changed, since the chanao
did not take place in consequence of any unforeseen
circumstance, but a change of authority arbitrarily
substituting one President for another. The second
ground, which M. Morin argued, is founded on the
shortening of the period allowed for the trial. no
insisted particularly that 48 hours had not inter-
vened between the rejection of the appeal and the
appearance of the accused before the Court of
Assize ; and he asked whether, in law, this delay
was sufficient for the accused to prepare his defence
and summon his witnesses. According to counsel
for the prisoner the period was so short that
the accused could not be forced to accept the
trial. No doubt the object and the result of
the law of the 10th June, 1855, was to prevent
prisoners from escaping from justice by dilatory
proceeding ; but in the present case the appeal
was regularly drawn up, consequently the code of
1808 should have been followed. Now, according
to article 296, the accused had five days from his
examination to appeal against the order for trial.
If he allowed this period to pass without an appeal,
the presumption was that he had prepared his de-
fence ; but according to precedent it is not the same
when he has chosen to demand that the proceedings
shall be annulled. In that case the presumption was
that he had devoted his time to prepare his appeal,
and not to his defence before the Court of Assize.
He should, consequently, have been allowed a
further delay. If not, it might be said that
he was liable tO be called before the Court of As-
size immediately after the notification of the re-
jection of his appeal, and he might thus find it
materially impossible to summon his witnesses, of
whom the list must be notified to the public prose-
cutor 24 hours previously. In fact, the accused
protested at the trial, and demanded the time
necessary for summoning the witnesses, of
whom he had furnished a list to the Attorney-
General. It was replied that the facts on which
he wished to examine his witnesses were
irrelevant ; but that is a contradiction which
cannot be admitted in an absolute manner, for it is
not possible to know whether those witnesses would
not have cleared up some doubts and established
the insanity. Arriving at the third point, which
he declared to be the most important, M. Morin
maintained that, whether according to the law of
9th September, 1835, well considered, or even ac-
cording to the decree which, conformably with the
right established by that law, prescribed that the
accused should be taken back to prison, the effect of
the expulsion ought to cease at the conclusion of the
trial, and the accused ought to have been brought
back to hear the sentence, or at least he should
have had an opportunity 'of answering whether he
had anything to add to his defence. M.
Morin admitted that the practice is contrary
in Paris, but he maintained that this practice is
contrary to the spirit of the law, and he cited, in
support of his argument, various precedents;
among others, the case of Madame Laffarge at
Limoges, and the trial before the Court of Peers
in April, 1834. He then concluded by demanding
that the proceedings should be quashed, as well in
the name of the principles of defence as in the
name of justice, so much interested in a new ex-
amination which should permit the degree of
insanity to be verified, which had not yet been
ascertained to a certainty.
After the speech of M. Morin the proceedings
were suspended for some minutes.
On their being resumed, the President called on
the Procureur-General (M. Royer) to address the
Court. M. Royer went over the incidents of the
trial before the Court of Assize, and alluded to the
painful effect produced by the violent conduct of
the accused on that occasion. Such things, he
said, should cease at the threshold of the Court of
Cassation. After saying a few wards on the ac-
cused himself, he entered minutely into the three
arguments put forward by the counsel for the
appellant. These arguments he refuted at some
length, and he ended by calling on the Court to re-
ject the appeal.
When the Procureur closed the address the judges