Resurrection Leo Tolstoy (ebook reader for pc .txt) 📖

is what I have noted down.” He took up several sheets of paper covered with writing, and began to read rapidly, slurring over the uninteresting legal terms and laying particular stress on some sentences. “ ‘To the Court of Appeal, criminal department, etc., etc. According to the decisions, etc., the verdict, etc., So-and-so Máslova pronounced guilty of having caused the death through poison of the merchant Smelkóff, and has, according to Statute 1454 of the penal code, been sentenced to Siberia,’ ” etc., etc. He stopped. Evidently, in spite of his being so used to it, he still felt pleasure in listening to his own productions. “ ‘This sentence is the direct result of the most glaring judicial perversion and error,’ ” he continued, impressively, “ ‘and there are grounds for its revocation. Firstly, the reading of the medical report of the examination of Smelkóff’s intestines was interrupted by the president at the very beginning.’ This is point one.”

“But it was the prosecuting side that demanded this reading,” Nekhlúdoff said, with surprise.

“That does not matter. There might have been reasons for the defence to demand this reading, too.”

“Oh, but there could have been no reason whatever for that.”

“It is a ground for appeal, though. To continue: ‘Secondly,’ ” he went on reading, “ ‘when Máslova’s advocate, in his speech for the defence, wishing to characterise Máslova’s personality, referred to the causes of her fall, he was interrupted by the president calling him to order for the alleged deviation from the direct subject. Yet, as has been repeatedly pointed out by the Senate, the elucidation of the criminal’s characteristics and his or her moral standpoint in general has a significance of the first importance in criminal cases, even if only as a guide in the settling of the question of imputation.’ That’s point two,” he said, with a look at Nekhlúdoff.

“But he spoke so badly that no one could make anything of it,” Nekhlúdoff said, still more astonished.

“The fellow’s quite a fool, and of course could not be expected to say anything sensible,” Fanárin said, laughing; “but, all the same, it will do as a reason for appeal. Thirdly: ‘The president, in his summing up, contrary to the direct decree of Section 1, Statute 801 of the criminal code, omitted to inform the jury what the judicial points are that constitute guilt; and did not mention that having admitted the fact of Máslova having administered the poison to Smelkóff, the jury had a right not to impute the guilt of murder to her, since the proofs of wilful intent to deprive Smelkóff of life were absent, and only to pronounce her guilty of carelessness resulting in the death of the merchant, which she did not desire.’ This is the chief point.”

“Yes; but we ought to have known that ourselves. It was our mistake.”

“And now the fourth point,” the advocate continued. “ ‘The form of the answer given by the jury contained an evident contradiction. Máslova is accused of wilfully poisoning Smelkóff, her one object being that of cupidity, the only motive to commit murder she could have had. The jury in their verdict acquit her of the intent to rob, or participation in the stealing of valuables, from which it follows that they intended also to acquit her of the intent to murder, and only through a misunderstanding, which arose from the incompleteness of the president’s summing up, omitted to express it in due form in their answer. Therefore an answer of this kind by the jury absolutely demanded the application of Statutes 816 and 808 of the criminal code of procedure, i.e., an explanation by the president to the jury of the mistake made by them, and another debate on the question of the prisoner’s guilt.’ ”

“Then why did the president not do it?”

“I, too, should like to know why,” Fanárin said, laughing.

“Then the Senate will, of course, correct this error?”

“That will all depend on who will preside there at the time. Well, now, there it is. I have further said,” he continued, rapidly, “ ‘a verdict of this kind gave the Court no right to condemn Máslova to be punished as a criminal, and to apply Section 3, Statute 771 of the penal code to her case. This is a decided and gross violation of the basic principles of our criminal law. In view of the reasons stated, I have the honour of appealing to you, etc., etc., the refutation, according to 909, 910, and Section 2, 912 and 928 Statute of the criminal code, etc., etc⁠ ⁠… to carry this case before another department of the same Court for a further examination.’ There; all that can be done is done, but, to be frank, I have little hope of success, though, of course, it all depends on what members will be present at the Senate. If you have any influence there you can but try.”

“I do know some.”

“All right; only be quick about it. Else they’ll all go off for a change of air; then you may have to wait three months before they return. Then, in case of failure, we have still the possibility of appealing to His Majesty. This, too, depends on the private influence you can bring to work. In this case, too, I am at your service; I mean as to the working of the petition, not the influence.”

“Thank you. Now as to your fees?”

“My assistant will hand you the petition and tell you.”

“One thing more. The Procureur gave me a pass for visiting this person in prison, but they tell me I must also get a permission from the governor in order to get an interview at another time and in another place than those appointed. Is this necessary?”

“Yes, I think so. But the governor is away at present; a vice-governor is in his place. And he is such an impenetrable fool that you’ll scarcely be able to do anything with him.”

“Is it Máslennikoff?”

“Yes.”

“I know him,” said Nekhlúdoff, and got up to go. At this moment a horribly ugly, little, bony,