"Peytel," says the act of accusation, "did not fail to see the danger which would menace him, if this will (which had escaped the magistrates in their search of Peytel's papers) was discovered.
He, therefore, instructed his agent to take possession of it, which he did, and the fact was not mentioned for several months afterwards.Peytel and his agent were called upon to explain the circumstance, but refused, and their silence for a long time interrupted the 'instruction'" (getting up of the evidence)."All that could be obtained from them was an avowal, that such a will existed, constituting Peytel his wife's sole legatee; and a promise, on their parts, to produce it before the court gave its sentence." But why keep the will secret? The anxiety about it was surely absurd and unnecessary: the whole of Madame Peytel's family knew that such a will was made.She had consulted her sister concerning it, who said--"If there is no other way of satisfying him, make the will;" and the mother, when she heard of it, cried out--"Does he intend to poison her?"After some disputes, which took place between Peytel and his wife (there were continual quarrels, and continual letters passing between them from room to room), the latter was induced to write him a couple of exaggerated letters, swearing "by the ashes of her father" that she would be an obedient wife to him, and entreating him to counsel and direct her.These letters were seen by members of the lady's family, who, in the quarrels between the couple, always took the husband's part.They were found in Peytel's cabinet, after he had been arrested for the murder, and after he had had full access to all his papers, of which he destroyed or left as many as he pleased.The accusation makes it a matter of suspicion against Peytel, that he should have left these letters of his wife's in a conspicuous situation.
"All these circumstances," says the accusation, "throw a frightful light upon Peytel's plans.The letters and will of Madame Peytel are in the hands of her husband.Three months pass away, and this poor woman is brought to her home, in the middle of the night, with two balls in her head, stretched at the bottom of her carriage, by the side of a peasant.""What other than Sebastian Peytel could have committed this murder?--whom could it profit?--who but himself had an odious chain to break, and an inheritance to receive? Why speak of the servant's projected robbery? The pistols found by the side of Louis's body, the balls bought by him at Macon, and those discovered at Belley among his effects, were only the result of a perfidious combination.The pistol, indeed, which was found on the hill of Darde, on the night of the 1st of November, could only have belonged to Peytel, and must have been thrown by him, near the body of his domestic, with the paper which had before enveloped it.
Who had seen this pistol in the hands of Louis? Among all the gendarmes, work-women, domestics, employed by Peytel and his brother-in-law, is there one single witness who had seen this weapon in Louis's possession? It is true that Madame Peytel did, on one occasion, speak to M.de Montrichard of a pistol; which had nothing to do, however, with that found near Louis Rey."Is this justice, or good reason? Just reverse the argument, and apply it to Rey."Who but Rey could have committed this murder?--who but Rey had a large sum of money to seize upon?--a pistol is found by his side, balls and powder in his pocket, other balls in his trunks at home.The pistol found near his body could not, indeed, have belonged to Peytel: did any man ever see it in his possession? The very gunsmith who sold it, and who knew Peytel, would he not have known that he had sold him this pistol? At his own house, Peytel has a collection of weapons of all kinds;everybody has seen them--a man who makes such collections is anxious to display them.Did any one ever see this weapon?--Not one.And Madame Peytel did, in her lifetime, remark a pistol in the valet's possession.She was short-sighted, and could not particularize what kind of pistol it was; but she spoke of it to her husband and her brother-in-law." This is not satisfactory, if you please; but, at least, it is as satisfactory as the other set of suppositions.It is the very chain of argument which would have been brought against Louis Rey by this very same compiler of the act of accusation, had Rey survived, instead of Peytel, and had he, as most undoubtedly would have been the case, been tried for the murder.
This argument was shortly put by Peytel's counsel:--"if Peytel had been killed by Rey in the struggle, would you not have found Rey guilty of the murder of his master and mistress?" It is such a dreadful dilemma, that I wonder how judges and lawyers could have dared to persecute Peytel in the manner which they did.
After the act of accusation, which lays down all the suppositions against Peytel as facts, which will not admit the truth of one of the prisoner's allegations in his own defence, comes the trial.
