The prisoner, who was guarded
by two gendarmes with unsheathed swords, was a twenty-year-old boy
with a bloodless face and in a gray coat. He sat alone on the
prisoners' bench and scanned from under his eyebrows all those that
entered the court-room. This boy and another were charged with
breaking the lock of a shed and stealing therefrom mats of the value
of three rubles and sixty-seven kopecks. It appeared from the
indictment that a policeman caught the boy when he was walking with
the other, who carried the mats on his shoulder. Both of them
immediately confessed, and they were put in jail. The comrade of this
boy, a locksmith, died in jail, and he was tried alone. The old mats
lay on the table reserved for exhibits.

The case was conducted in the same order as yesterday, with all the
proofs, witnesses, experts, oath-taking, examinations and
cross-examinations. The policeman, when questioned by the justiciary,
complainant and the defense, made listless answers--"Yes, sir," "Can't
tell," and again "Yes, sir"--but notwithstanding this, it was apparent
that he pitied the boy and testified involuntarily against him.

Another witness, a splenetic old man who owned those mats, when asked
if they belonged to him, unwillingly testified that they were his.
When, however, the prosecutor asked him what use he intended to make
of them, and whether he needed them much, he became angry and
answered: "I wish they had been lost entirely, these mats. I don't
need them at all. And if I had known that you would make so much fuss
about them, I would gladly have given ten rubles, or twenty, rather
than be dragged into court. I have spent five rubles on carriages
coming here and going back again. And I am sick; I am suffering from
rupture and rheumatism."

The prisoner admitted the charge against him, and, like a trapped
animal, stupidly looked now to one side, now to the other, and in a
halting voice related everything as it happened.

It was a clear case, but the prosecutor, as he did yesterday, raised
his shoulders and propounded subtle questions which were calculated to
entrap the clever criminal.

In his speech he argued that the theft was committed in a
dwelling-house by breaking and entering it, and that therefore the
severest punishment should be meted out to him.

Counsel for the defense, appointed by the court, argued that the
theft was committed not in a dwelling-house, and that, though the
prisoner pleaded guilty, he