sician who
happened to be in the neighborhood. The colonel spoke so impressively
and with such self-confidence and dignity that no one dared to
interrupt him. Only the clerk, infected by the example set by the
colonel, thought of telling a story of his own.

"Some people get so accustomed to opium," he began, "that they can
take forty drops at a time. A relative of mine----"

But the colonel would brook no interruption, and went on to tell of
the effect of the opium on his brother-in-law's wife.

"It is five o'clock, gentlemen," said one of the jury.

"What do you say, gentlemen," said the foreman. "We find her guilty,
but without the intent to rob, and without stealing any property--is
that correct?"

Peter Gerasimovich, pleased with the victory he had gained, agreed to
the verdict.

"And we recommend her to the mercy of the court," added the merchant.

Every one agreed except the laborer, who insisted on a verdict of "Not
guilty."

"But that is the meaning of the verdict," explained the foreman.
"Without the intent to rob, and without stealing any property--hence
she is not guilty."

"Don't forget to throw in the recommendation to mercy. If there be
anything left that will wipe it out," joyfully said the merchant. They
were so tired and the arguments had so confused them that it did not
occur to any one to add "but without the intent to cause the death of
the merchant."

Nekhludoff was so excited that he did not notice it. The answers were
in this form taken to the court.

Rabelais relates the story of a jurist who was trying a case, and who,
after citing innumerable laws and reading twenty pages of
incomprehensible judicial Latin, made an offer to the litigants to
throw dice; if an even number fell then the plaintiff was right; if an
odd number the defendant was right.

It was the same here. The verdict was reached not because the majority
of the jury agreed to it, but first because the justiciary had so
drawn out his speech that he failed to properly instruct the jury;
second, because the colonel's story about his brother-in-law's wife
was tedious; third, because Nekhludoff was so excited that he did not
notice the omission of the clause limiting the intent in the answer,
and thought that the words "without intent to rob" negatively answered
the question; fourth, because Peter Gerasimovich was not in the room
when the foreman read the questions and answers, and chiefly because
the jury were tired ou