ministered to him poison in a glass of brandy, which caused the
death of Smelkoff, and of afterward robbing him of twenty-five hundred
rubles and a diamond ring?

2. Is the burgess Euphemia Ivanovna Bochkova, forty-seven years of
age, guilty of the crime mentioned in the first question?

3. Is the burgess Katherine Michaelovna Maslova, twenty-seven years of
age, guilty of the crime mentioned in the first question?

4. If the prisoner Euphemia Bochkova is not guilty of the crime set
forth in the first question, is she not guilty of secretly stealing,
while employed in the Hotel Mauritania, on the 17th day of January,
188-, twenty-five hundred rubles from the trunk of the merchant
Smelkoff, to which end she opened the trunk in the hotel with a key
brought and fitted by her?

The foreman read the first question.

"Well, gentlemen, what do you think?"

This question was quickly answered. They all agreed to answer
"Guilty." The only one that dissented was an old laborer, whose answer
to all questions was "Not guilty."

The foreman thought that he did not understand the questions and
proceeded to explain that from all the facts it was evident that
Kartinkin and Bochkova were guilty, but the laborer answered that he
did understand them, and that he thought that they ought to be
charitable. "We are not saints ourselves," he said, and did not change
his opinion.

The second question, relating to Bochkova, after many arguments and
elucidations, was answered "Not guilty," because there was no clear
proof that she participated in the poisoning--a fact on which her
lawyer put much stress.

The merchant, desiring to acquit Maslova, insisted that Bochkova was
the author of the conspiracy. Many of the jurymen agreed with him, but
the foreman, desiring to conform strictly to the law, said that there
was no foundation for the charge of poisoning against her. After a
lengthy argument the foreman's opinion triumphed.

The fourth question, relating to Bochkova, was answered "Guilty," but
at the insistence of the laborer, she was recommended to the mercy of
the court.

The third question called forth fierce argument. The foreman insisted
that she was guilty of both the poisoning and robbery; the merchant,
colonel, clerk and laborer opposed this view, while the others
hesitated, but the opinion of the foreman began to predominate,
principally because the jury were tired out, and they willingly joined
the side which promised to