When the president asked the Messieurs de Simeuse why they had ridden out so early, they both declared that wishing, since their return, to buy back Gondreville and intending to make an offer to Malin who had arrived the night before, they had gone out early with their cousin and Michu to make certain examinations of the property on which to base their offer.  During that time the Messieurs d’Hauteserre, their cousin, and Gothard had chased a wolf which was reported in the forest by the peasantry.  If the director of the jury had sought for the prints of their horses’ feet in the forest as carefully as in the park of Gondreville, he would have found proof of their presence at long distances from the house.

The examination of the Messieurs d’Hauteserre corroborated this testimony, and was in harmony with their preliminary dispositions.  The necessity of some reason for their ride suggested to each of them the excuse of hunting.  The peasants had given warning, a few days earlier, of a wolf in the forest, and on that they had fastened as a pretext.

The public prosecutor, however, pointed out a discrepancy between the first statements of the Messieurs d’Hauteserre, in which they mentioned that the whole party hunted together, and the defence now made by the Messieurs de Simeuse that their purpose on that day was the valuation of the forest.

Monsieur de Grandville here called attention to the fact that as the crime was not committed until after two o’clock in the afternoon, the prosecution had no ground to question their word when they stated the manner in which they had employed their morning.

The prosecutor replied that the prisoners had an interest in concealing their preparations for the abduction of the senator.

The remarkable ability of the defence was now felt.  Judges, jurors, and audience became aware that victory would be hotly contested.  Bordin and Monsieur de Grandville had studied their ground and foreseen everything.  Innocence is required to render a clear and plausible account of its actions.  The duty of the defence is to present a consistent and probable tale in opposition to an insufficient and improbable accusation.  To counsel who regard their client as innocent, an accusation is false.  The public examination of the four gentlemen sufficiently explained the matter in their favor.  So far all was well.  But the examination of Michu was more serious; there the real struggle began.  It was now clear to every one why Monsieur de Grandville had preferred to take charge of the servant’s defence rather than that of his masters.