esident should have foreseen
the arrival of the Duchesse de Maufrigneuse upon the scene, the return
of the public prosecutor, and the hasty confabulation of his learned
brethren; so he had omitted to trace out a plan for du Croisier's
guidance in the event of the preliminary examination taking place.
Neither of the pair imagined that the proceedings would be hurried on in
this way. Du Croisier obeyed the summons at once; he wanted to know
how M. Camusot was disposed to act. So he was compelled to answer the
questions put to him. Camusot addressed him in summary fashion with the
six following inquiries:--

"Was the signature on the bill alleged to be a forgery in your
handwriting?--Had you previously done business with M. le Comte
d'Esgrignon?--Was not M. le Comte d'Esgrignon in the habit of
drawing upon you, with or without advice?--Did you not write a letter
authorizing M. d'Esgrignon to rely upon you at any time?--Had not
Chesnel squared the account not once, but many times already?--Were you
not away from home when this took place?"

All these questions the banker answered in the affirmative. In spite of
wordy explanations, the magistrate always brought him back to a "Yes"
or "No." When the questions and answers alike had been resumed in the
proces-verbal, the examining magistrate brought out a final thunderbolt.

"Was du Croisier aware that the money destined to meet the bill had been
deposited with him, du Croisier, according to Chesnel's declaration, and
a letter of advice sent by the said Chesnel to the Comte d'Esgrignon,
five days before the date of the bill?"

That last question frightened du Croisier. He asked what was meant by
it, and whether he was supposed to be the defendant and M. le Comte
d'Esgrignon the plaintiff? He called the magistrate's attention to the
fact that if the money had been deposited with him, there was no ground
for the action.

"Justice is seeking information," said the magistrate, as he dismissed
the witness, but not before he had taken down du Croisier's last
observation.

"But the money, sir----"

"The money is at your house."

Chesnel, likewise summoned, came forward to explain the matter. The
truth of his assertions was borne out by Mme. du Croisier's deposition.
The Count had already been examined. Prompted by Chesnel, he produced du
Croisier's first letter, in which he begged the Count to draw upon him
without the insulting formality of depositing the amount beforehand.