Resurrection

"It was not possible for the servants to do it alone; she had the

key."

This kind of random talk went on for a considerable time. At last

the foreman said: "I beg your pardon, gentlemen, but had we not

better take our places at the table and discuss the matter?

Come, please." And he took the chair.

The questions were expressed in the following manner.

1. Is the peasant of the village Borki, Krapivinskia district,

Simeon Petrov Kartinkin, 33 years of age, guilty of having, in

agreement with other persons, given the merchant Smelkoff, on the

17th January, 188-, in the town of N-----, with intent to deprive

him of life, for the purpose of robbing him, poisoned brandy,

which caused Smelkoff's death, and of having stolen from him

about 2,500 roubles in money and a diamond ring?

2. Is the meschanka Euphemia Ivanovna Botchkova, 43 years of age,

guilty of the crimes described above?

3. Is the meschanka Katerina Michaelovna Maslova, 27 years of

age, guilty of the crimes described in the first question?

4. If the prisoner Euphemia Botchkova is not guilty according to

the first question, is she not guilty of having, on the 17th

January, in the town of N----, while in service at the hotel

Mauritania, stolen from a locked portmanteau, belonging to the

merchant Smelkoff, a lodger in that hotel, and which was in the

room occupied by him, 2,500 roubles, for which object she

unlocked the portmanteau with a key she brought and fitted to the

lock?

The foreman read the first question.

"Well, gentlemen, what do you think?" This question was quickly

answered. All agreed to say "Guilty," as if convinced that

Kartinkin had taken part both in the poisoning and the robbery.

An old artelshik, [member of an artel, an association of workmen,

in which the members share profits and liabilities] whose

answers were all in favour of acquittal, was the only exception.

The foreman thought he did not understand, and began to point out

to him that everything tended to prove Kartinkin's guilt. The old

man answered that he did understand, but still thought it better

to have pity on him. "We are not saints ourselves," and he kept

to his opinion.

The answer to the second question concerning Botchkova was, after

much dispute and many exclamations, answered by the words, "Not

guilty," there being no clear proofs of her having taken part in

the poisoning--a fact her advocate had strongly insisted on. The

merchant, anxious to acquit Maslova, insisted that Botchkova was

the chief instigator of it all. Many of the jury shared this

view, but the foreman, wishing to be in strict accord with the

law, declared they had no grounds to consider her as an

accomplice in the poisoning. After much disputing the foreman's

opinion triumphed.

To the fourth question concerning Botchkova the answer was

"Guilty." But on the artelshik's insistence she was recommended

to mercy.