Page:The Naturalisation of the Supernatural.pdf/178

158 two panes. I also saw a shoe leave the pupil's foot and go and break a pane." He saw several other movements of objects, and was certain that neither of the pupils caused them.

Practically all the witnesses were confident that the movements and noises could not have been caused by the children or by M. Tinel. The only hint of a normal explanation which appears, in some eighty typewritten pages of evidence, is a statement by one or two of the witnesses that they had heard a M. Fontaine call out from the window that he had caught the younger boy in the act of cheating. Now Maitre Fontaine, apparently the same person, was the counsel for the plaintiff, and was presumably precluded from giving evidence in his own person. He cross-examined Lemonnier, however, on the incident of the alleged detection, but the boy seems to have stood the examination with great self-possession, and made no damaging admissions. On Maitre Fontaine's attempting to cross-examine the elder boy, Bunel, to similar effect, the Judge disallowed the questions as being irrelevant and contrary to the dignity of justice. The Court, in fact, seems to have been not very wise, perhaps not quite impartial, and certainly unduly sensitive as to its own dignity. In the summing up of the case the Judge found that "the most clear result of all the evidence is that the cause [of the disturbances] remains unknown." Thorel was nonsuited, on the ground that, if he had not done the things himself, he had said that