Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 01.pdf/254

Rh deed was committed; he had the watch of his victim upon him when arrested.

Nothing could be clearer; but was Lebrun an accomplice of Berry? He (Berry), unable to deny his participation in the crime, tried to throw the blame upon the valet-de-chambre; but on the day of his execution he freed his conscience. In the presence of M. le Nain and of his counsel Gilbert, he made a full confession, in which he acknowledged that he alone was the author of the crime. His object had been robbery, and he succeeded in obtaining some six thousand livres, which Madame Mazel had in a purse. He had not intended to kill Madame Mazel, but was forced to do so on her attempting to call for aid.

He said nothing of any complicity on the part of the family, or of the persons it was believed were concerned in the affair. He carefully avoided any allusion to them.

In 1694 a decree of Parliament rehabilitated the memory of Lebrun, and, in spite of the efforts of the advocate for the De Savonnières, confirmed the legacy of six thousand livres.

The Savonnières and the administrators of the laws of those times are objects of disgust and shame to modern generations; the poor valet unjustly condemned, the poor widow whose husband's life was actually bargained away, have had added to their denouncing voices the voices of all those of later times, who have unhesitatingly condemned the infamous regime under which such travesties upon justice were possible.

THE CHARACTER OF A SOLICITOR IN 1675.

HE following extract from a pamphlet, dated 1675, illustrates the reputation in which solicitors as contrasted with attorneys were then held:—