Year: 1876

The murder of Madame Pauw in
France, about ten years ago, shows how
conspicuous and powerful motive, in
the absence Of other conclusive evidence,
sometimes puts Justice successfully upon
the track of the criminal. Madame
Pauw was widow with three children,
who had an intimate friend in the Count
de La Pommerais. This titled parsonage
was in need of money, and he had a
head for scheming. He planned fraud
upon eight insurance companies, and
persuaded the poor widow to become
his instrument in it. Her life was to be
insured she was then to feign danger
ous illness; and, while lying apparently
in serious strait, the insurance COM
panies. were to be persuaded to change
the Gfe-policies into annuities. The
count advanced the premiums; the
policies were made out, transferable by
Endorsement. Madame Pauw was then
induced to indorse them to him, and
also to make will out in his favor. The
next thing was for the widow to pretend
10 fall i'll, which she did; but, instead
-ef the policies being transformed into
annuities, the poor lady died It was a
grave blunder of the count to tell the
doctor, when he came in, that Madame
Pauw had fallen down stairs; for not
only was this denied by abundant testi-
mony, but the post.mortens e1amina-
ion betrayed the presence Of poison as
the cause of her death. At once there.
after the Count de Ia Pommerais came
into the possession of the half million
francs which crued under the policies
and the will. Here occurred q singular
incident in the trial. It is clear that, if
the count had intended the fraud in earn
est when he proposed it to Madame
Pauw, and really designed to obtain for
her an annuity by its means, thus secur-
ing to himself life income, he could
have had no serious motive for killing
her. And this was actually his defense
against the charge of murder. He de-
clared, and tried to prove, that he really
meant to carry out the fraud, and that
Madame Pauw's death was catastrophe
and an accident. Thus in trying to clear
himself of the grave crime, he coolly
confessed the lesser. But the proof
contradictory of his case was too clear !;
he was convicted and duly executed.


It has been said that a very important


link in tho chain of circumstantial evi-
dence is that Of opportunity. 70 show
want of opportunity, that is, an ali6i,
is an absolute answer to the strongest
indictments, and produces fatal flaw
in the chain. Opportunity to commit
the crime must be either proved out.
right or inferred by the most conclusive
presumption. There never was more
striking case illustrative of this than
that of the young Scottish girl Made
leine Smith, whose trial at Glasgow may
easily be remembered by many readers.
It may be said that the trial was one of


the most interesting in British judicial
annals. Madeleine Smith had engaged
herself to young Frenchman named
L'Angelier. 1t was clearly proved that
she had tired Of him, and was anxious
to disentangle herself from the connec-
ton. But L'Angelier clung to her, and
refused to be rebuffed. There is no
doubt that on several occasions, just
previous to his visits, she had purchased
poison; or that, always after these visits,


he was seized with severe illness. On
the seventeenth of March Madeleine re-
turned to her house in Glasgow, after a
brief visit to some friends. The next
day she purchased some arsenic, etc
kill rats with" as she said. Thearsenic
bought, the next thing she did was to
write to L'Angelier, inviting him to tea
on the evening of the nineteenth. He
happened to be out of town. and did not.
therefore, get the note until it was too
late to accept the invitation. She wrote
again on the twenty-frst, urging him to
come the next evening, and saying;
81 waited and waited for you, but you
came not. ! shall wait again tomorrow
night, same time and arrangement.
This note L'Angeier received. So far
the proof was clear. Itwas also In eH-
derce that he started from his lodgings