Denton and Haughton Examiner, etc. — 1886-08-21 (Denton, Greater Manchester, England)

TRIAL OF A MONK AT BORDEAUX.  Bordeaux has been in a state of excitement about the trial before the Assize Court there of a Dominican named Pierre Brochard. This monk is also a Doctor of Theology, and a remarkably fine-looking man of thirty-five, with a long brown beard of exceptional luxuriance. The indictment sets forth that on the 31st March last a malefactor entered the Dominican monastery at Lille, and with the aid of false keys succeeded in opening the safe in which money, Stock Exchange Securities, and other property were kept. He carried of twelve debentures of Austrian Ideate worth 30,000 francs, and upwards of 9000 francs in bank-notes and gold. This robbery most have been committed by a person familiar with the monastery, as no window was broken nor was any noise heard by any one belonging to the house, Pierre Brochard, it was further set forth, left the building on the eve of the robbery, and on the 13th May assumed the name of Berthier, went to the office of M. Molina, a money changer of Bordeaux, and sought to get several Austrian debentures cashed. As notice had been received by the money changers of Bordeaux not to pay the stolen bonds. H. Molina, finding the numbers were the same as those on the list sent by the Dominicans of Lille, caused Pierre Brochard to he arrested. The monk, on bring interrogated, owned that he had been enabled by false keys which a Lille locksmith manufactured for him on the model of the real ones, to open the iron safe of the order. He committed the robbery the night after he left the monastery, when all the inmates were in bed, simply by unlocking every door that came in his way. On quitting Lille he decided to renounce an ecclesiastical life, and gave out, according to the indictment, that he had committed suicide. Then in plain clothes, and under the , name of Berthier, he proceeded to Bordeaux. There Brocard attempted to negotiate the securities he , had stolen in the way above related. On being interrogated, ho explained in a full, clear voice, and in equally clear terms, how he had got to the safe and opened it. He was asked if he wished to retract and he said" No;" that he had prepared everything beforehand, and had some time previously obtained I leave, on the ground of failing health, to quit Lille arid go to the monastery at Mouleau. He said that it was true that he had taken money and securities in the safe, amounting to 40,000 L, and that he simulated suicide by leaving his monastic suit ia,B the bank of a river, where they were found. He swam to the other side. and as he had prepared the brotherhood for suicide, they concluded, when his frock and underclothing were found, that he had drowned himself. When be got away he told everyone he met about the suicide of the monk Brochard, no that he was never suspected of the robbery, and would not have been detected but for the money-changer noticing the numbers of the Austrian debentures. Nothing could be more full than the avowal. On the judge asking whether he had anything to add in extenuation of his offence, lie said he had a grave malady which science was powerless to cure, and that owing to its effects on his brain he was unable to preach It was under the influence of this derangement that he planned and executed the robbery, which, he owned, he went about in scoot and cautious manner that seemed incompatible with the mental state he described. His crime was abominable, and his repentance was deep and bitter. A Dominican Brother was called by Brochard'a counsel as a witness of the circumstances of the robbery. He knew nothing bcyond what hod been confessed, but he informed the jury that according to the civil law there hod been no robbery, al things being in common in a monastery. BrOehard had perhaps taken more than his share, and prematurely, out of a fund of which he was a co-proprietor, for under the decree for the expulsion of the religious orders this money was divided equally among the brethren, who were to be regarded as a religious family. The presiding judge indignantly protested against this theory, but it went home to the jurors, who returned an unanimous verdict of acquittal.