<h2>CHAPTER VII</h2>
<p class="center"><small>THE STRANGE CASE OF MADAME LAFARGE</small></p>
<p><span class="smcap">The</span> story of Madame Lafarge,
who was tried in France for the
murder of her husband in 1840,
is a strangely romantic one.</p>
<p>Marie Fortunée Cappelle was
the daughter of a captain in the
Imperial Artillery. Her parents
died in her childhood, and she
was placed in the care of an
aunt, who, at the earliest opportunity,
determined to relieve
herself of the burden of her
support by negotiating a marriage
for her. While still a
girl, through the instrumentality
of a matrimonial agent in Paris,
an alliance was arranged between
Marie Cappelle and one
Monsieur Charles Lafarge, who
was a widower and an ironmaster
of Glandier.</p>
<p>The marriage, which was purely
a commercial transaction, took
place in Paris on August 15,
1839, after which, Lafarge and
his young wife set out for his
old and gloomy seigneurial
mansion in Glandier.</p>
<p>From statements made afterwards,
Madame Lafarge became
disgusted with her husband's
brutality before the
honeymoon was over. After
they reached their own house,
however, they were reconciled,
and there seemed to be every
possibility of their spending a
happy wedded life together.</p>
<p>Besides the newly married
pair, there lived in the family
mansion the mother and sister
of Lafarge, and his chief clerk,
one Denis Barbier, was a frequent
visitor at the house, and
had liberty to walk through
the place without restriction.</p>
<p>In a very short time Madame
Lafarge discovered that both
she and her relatives had been
deceived as to the position of
her husband, and that instead
of being a man of considerable
fortune, he was straitened for
means. On his representations
she bestowed upon him
all her fortune, and even wrote
letters at his dictation to some
of her wealthy friends, asking
them to aid him to find money
to develop a new method he
claimed to have discovered for
smelting iron. With these
letters of introduction, Lafarge
set out for Paris in December,
1839, to raise money to start
his new project.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_50" id="Page_50">50</SPAN></span></p>
<p>While he was thus away, his
wife had her portrait drawn by
an artist in Glandier, and determined
to send it to her absent
husband. She therefore packed
it in a box, with some cakes
made by his mother, together
with an affectionate letter, and
despatched them to Paris.
This box, which contained
nothing but the five small cakes,
the portrait, and the letter, was
packed and sealed by Madame
Lafarge in the presence of
several witnesses.</p>
<p>When it reached Paris and
was opened by Lafarge, it
contained only <em>one large cake</em>,
after partaking of which he was
suddenly taken ill, and was
eventually compelled to return
home, where he arrived on
January 5, 1840. His sickness
continued and increased
in severity, and nine days afterwards
he died.</p>
<p>Shortly after his death his
mother and friends, who were
well aware how the widow disliked
them and her husband
also, who had made her life so
unhappy, at once imputed the
cause of death to poison administered
by his wife in the
cake she had sent to Paris, and
Marie Cappelle Lafarge was
arrested on suspicion.</p>
<p>When the house of the deceased
man was searched,
certain diamonds were found,
which were supposed to have
been stolen from the Vicomtesse
de Léotaud by Madame Lafarge
before her marriage.</p>
<p>The unfortunate woman was
therefore charged with the
double crime of theft and murder.</p>
<p>Though arrested in January,
1840, the trial of Madame
Lafarge did not commence till
July 9 of the same year, and
the charge of theft was first
proceeded with in her absence,
and she was found guilty.</p>
<p>While this judgment was still
under appeal, she was brought
to trial on the graver charge.</p>
<p>The evidence for the prosecution
went to prove that the
illness of Lafarge commenced
with the eating of the cake
received from his home. As
already stated, when the box
arrived in Paris the seals had
been broken, the five cakes had
disappeared, and <em>a single cake
"as large as a plate"</em> had been
substituted for them. It was
alleged by the prosecution that
this single cake had been prepared
by Madame Lafarge, and
secretly placed in the box; but
no evidence could be brought
to prove that she ever tampered
with the box after it had been
sealed. Lafarge's clerk, Denis
Barbier, made a clandestine
visit to Paris after the box had<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_51" id="Page_51">51</SPAN></span>
been despatched, and he was
with Lafarge when it arrived in
Paris, yet no notice seems to
have been taken of this suspicious
fact. It transpired, it
was he who also first threw out
hints on his master's return
that he was being poisoned by
arsenic, and told a brother
employé that his master would
be dead within ten days. There
was ample proof, however, that
there was a considerable quantity
of arsenic in the house
at Glandier. It was found that
Madame Lafarge had purchased
some in December, stating she
required it for destroying rats;
Denis also stated in evidence,
that Madame had requested
him to procure her some arsenic.
He bought some, but did not
give it to her. It was further
stated that Madame Lafarge
was seen to stir a white powder
into some chicken broth which
had been prepared for her husband,
the remains of which,
found in a bowl, were said by
the analyst to contain arsenic.</p>
<p>The medical men who conducted
the post-mortem examination
gave it as their deliberate
opinion that the deceased
man had been poisoned
by arsenic, of which metal
they professed to have found
considerable quantities. The
friends of the accused then
submitted the matter to Orfila,
the famous toxicologist, who,
on giving his opinion of the
methods and manner in which
the analysis had been carried
out, said that owing to the
antiquated and doubtful
methods of detection employed
by the medical men, it was
probable they fancied they had
found arsenic where there was
none. Thereupon the prosecution
asked Orfila to undertake
a fresh analysis himself,
which he consented to do, and,
on making a careful examination
of the remains, stated he
discovered just a minute trace
of arsenic.</p>
<p>This apparently sealed the
doom of the accused woman,
and served to strengthen the
bias of the jury. But now
another actor appeared in the
drama in the person of Raspail,
another famous French chemist,
who had watched the case from
the beginning with interest.
On hearing the result of Orfila's
examination, he had taken the
trouble to trace the zinc wire
with which Orfila had experimented,
to the shop where the
great toxicologist had procured
the article, and he found on
analysis that the <em>zinc itself</em> contained
more arsenic than Orfila
had detected by his examination.
Orfila had used Marsh's<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_52" id="Page_52">52</SPAN></span>
test, which is infallible so long
as the reagents used are free
from arsenic themselves.</p>
<p>Raspail, having placed the
result of his discovery of arsenic
in Orfila's reagent, at the service
of the defence, was on his way
to Tulle, where the Assizes
were being held, when an unfortunate
accident delayed his
progress, and the unhappy
Marie Cappelle Lafarge, after a
trial which lasted sixteen days,
was found guilty meanwhile,
and condemned to imprisonment
for life with hard labour,
and exposure in the pillory.
Raspail, however, would not
let the matter rest, and at once
set to work to save the condemned
woman. He at length
got Orfila to fairly admit his
error and join him in a professional
report to the authorities
to that effect.</p>
<p>After being imprisoned for
twelve years, in the end the
sentence on this unhappy woman
was reduced to five years in the
Montpellier house of detention,
after which the Government
sent her to the Convent of St.
Rémy, from whence she was
liberated in 1852, but only to
end her wretched life a few
months afterwards.</p>
<p>There appeared in the <em>Edinburgh
Review</em> for 1842 a careful
examination of this interesting
case from a legal point of view,
in which the writer states the
strongest evidence indicated
Denis and not Madame Lafarge
as the perpetrator of the crime.
It was proved this man lived by
forgery, and assisted Lafarge in
some very shady transactions
to cover the latter's insolvency.
He was further known to harbour
a deadly hatred for Madame
Lafarge. He was with his
master in Paris when he was
seized with the sudden illness,
and it transpired that out of
the 25,000 francs the ironmaster
had succeeded in borrowing
from his wife's relatives,
only 3,900 could be found when
he returned to Glandier. On
his own statement he was in the
possession of a quantity of
arsenic, and he was the first to
direct suspicion against his
master's wife. Yet all these
facts appear to have been overlooked
in the efforts of the
prosecution to fasten the guilt
on the unfortunate woman.
That Lafarge died from the
effects of arsenical poisoning
there seems little doubt, but
by whom it was administered
has never been conclusively
proved, and the tragedy still
remains among the unsolved
poisoning mysteries.</p>
<hr class="chap" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_53" id="Page_53">53</SPAN></span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />