THE TRIAL--THE VERDICT.
At last the president finished his speech, and lifting the list of questions with a graceful movement of his arm he handed it to the foreman, who came up to take it. The jury, glad to be able to get into the debating-court, got up one after the other and left the room, looking as if a bit ashamed of themselves and again not knowing what to do with their hands. As soon as the door was closed behind them a gendarme came up to it, pulled his sword out of the scabbard, and, holding it up against his shoulder, stood at the door. The judges got up and went away. The prisoners were also led out. When the jury came into the debating-room the first thing they did was to take out their cigarettes, as before, and begin smoking. The sense of the unnaturalness and falseness of their position, which all of them had experienced while sitting in their places in the court, passed when they entered the debating-room and started smoking, and they settled down with a feeling of relief and at once began an animated conversation.
"'Tisn't the girl's fault. She's got mixed up in it," said the kindly merchant. "We must recommend her to mercy."
"That's just what we are going to consider," said the foreman. "We must not give way to our personal impressions."
"The president's summing up was good," remarked the colonel.
"Good? Why, it nearly sent me to sleep!"
"The chief point is that the servants could have known nothing about the money if Maslova had not been in accord with them," said the clerk of Jewish extraction.
"Well, do you think that it was she who stole the money?" asked one of the jury.
"I will never believe it," cried the kindly merchant; "it was all that red-eyed hag's doing."
"They are a nice lot, all of them," said the colonel.
"But she says she never went into the room."
"Oh, believe her by all means."
"I should not believe that jade, not for the world."
"Whether you believe her or not does not settle the question," said the clerk.
"The girl had the key," said the colonel.
"What if she had?" retorted the merchant.
"And the ring?"
"But didn't she say all about it?" again cried the merchant. "The fellow had a temper of his own, and had had a drop too much besides, and gave the girl a licking; what could be simpler? Well, then he's sorry--quite naturally. 'There, never mind,' says he; 'take this.' Why, I heard them say he was six foot five high; I should think he must have weighed about 20 stones."
"That's not the point," said Peter Gerasimovitch. "The question is, whether she was the instigator and inciter in this affair, or the servants?"
"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.
The third question, concerning Maslova, raised a fierce dispute. The foreman maintained she was guilty both of the poisoning and the theft, to which the merchant would not agree. The colonel, the clerk and the old artelshik sided with the merchant, the rest seemed shaky, and the opinion of the foreman began to gain ground, chiefly because all the jurymen were getting tired, and preferred to take up the view that would bring them sooner to a decision and thus liberate them.
From all that had passed, and from his former knowledge of Maslova, Nekhludoff was certain that she was innocent of both the theft and the poisoning. And he felt sure that all the others would come to the same conclusion. When he saw that the merchant's awkward defence (evidently based on his physical admiration for her, which he did not even try to hide) and the foreman's insistence, and especially everybody's weariness, were all tending to her condemnation, he longed to state his objections, yet dared not, lest his relations with Maslova should be discovered. He felt he could not allow things to go on without stating his objection; and, blushing and growing pale again, was about to speak when Peter Gerasimovitch, irritated by the authoritative manner of the foreman, began to raise his objections and said the very things Nekhludoff was about to say.
"Allow me one moment," he said. "You seem to think that her having the key proves she is guilty of the theft; but what could be easier than for the servants to open the portmanteau with a false key after she was gone?"
"Of course, of course," said the merchant.
"She could not have taken the money, because in her position she would hardly know what to do with it."
"That's just what I say," remarked the merchant.
"But it is very likely that her coming put the idea into the servants' heads and that they grasped the opportunity and shoved all the blame on her." Peter Gerasimovitch spoke so irritably that the foreman became irritated too, and went on obstinately defending the opposite views; but Peter Gerasimovitch spoke so convincingly that the majority agreed with him, and decided that Maslova was not guilty of stealing the money and that the ring was given her.
But when the question of her having taken part in the poisoning was raised, her zealous defender, the merchant, declared that she must be acquitted, because she could have no reason for the poisoning. The foreman, however, said that it was impossible to acquit her, because she herself had pleaded guilty to having given the powder.
"Yes, but thinking it was opium," said the merchant.
"Opium can also deprive one of life," said the colonel, who was fond of wandering from the subject, and he began telling how his brother-in-law's wife would have died of an overdose of opium if there had not been a doctor near at hand to take the necessary measures. The colonel told his story so impressively, with such self-possession and dignity, that no one had the courage to interrupt him. Only the clerk, infected by his example, decided to break in with a story of his own: "There are some who get so used to it that they can take 40 drops. I have a relative--," but the colonel would not stand the interruption, and went on to relate what effects the opium had on his brother-in-law's wife.
"But, gentlemen, do you know it is getting on towards five o'clock?" said one of the jury.
"Well, gentlemen, what are we to say, then?" inquired the foreman. "Shall we say she is guilty, but without intent to rob? And without stealing any property? Will that do?" Peter Gerasimovitch, pleased with his victory, agreed.
"But she must be recommended to mercy," said the merchant.
All agreed; only the old artelshik insisted that they should say "Not guilty."
"It comes to the same thing," explained the foreman; "without intent to rob, and without stealing any property. Therefore, 'Not guilty,' that's evident."
"All right; that'll do. And we recommend her to mercy," said the merchant, gaily.
They were all so tired, so confused by the discussions, that nobody thought of saying that she was guilty of giving the powder but without the intent of taking life. Nekhludoff was so excited that he did not notice this omission, and so the answers were written down in the form agreed upon and taken to the court.
Rabelais says that a lawyer who was trying a case quoted all sorts of laws, read 20 pages of judicial senseless Latin, and then proposed to the judges to throw dice, and if the numbers proved odd the defendant would he right, if not, the plaintiff.
It was much the same in this case. The resolution was taken, not because everybody agreed upon it, but because the president, who had been summing up at such length, omitted to say what he always said on such occasions, that the answer might be, "Yes, guilty, but without the intent of taking life;" because the colonel had related the story of his brother-in-law's wife at such great length; because Nekhludoff was too excited to notice that the proviso "without intent to take life" had been omitted, and thought that the words "without intent" nullified the conviction; because Peter Gerasimovitch had retired from the room while the questions and answers were being read, and chiefly because, being tired, and wishing to get away as soon as possible, all were ready to agree with the decision which would bring matters to an end soonest.
The jurymen rang the bell. The gendarme who had stood outside the door with his sword drawn put the sword back into the scabbard and stepped aside. The judges took their seats and the jury came out one by one.
The foreman brought in the paper with an air of solemnity and handed it to the president, who looked at it, and, spreading out his hands in astonishment, turned to consult his companions. The president was surprised that the jury, having put in a proviso--without intent to rob--did not put in a second proviso--without intent to take life. From the decision of the jury it followed that Maslova had not stolen, nor robbed, and yet poisoned a man without any apparent reason.
"Just see what an absurd decision they have come to," he whispered to the member on his left. "This means penal servitude in Siberia, and she is innocent."
"Surely you do not mean to say she is innocent?" answered the serious member.
"Yes, she is positively innocent. I think this is a case for putting Article 817 into practice (Article 817 states that if the Court considers the decision of the jury unjust it may set it aside)."
"What do you think?" said the president, turning to the other member. The kindly member did not answer at once. He looked at the number on a paper before him and added up the figures; the sum would not divide by three. He had settled in his mind that if it did divide by three he would agree to the president's proposal, but though the sum would not so divide his kindness made him agree all the same.
"I, too, think it should he done," he said.
"And you?" asked the president, turning to the serious member.
"On no account," he answered, firmly. "As it is, the papers accuse the jury of acquitting prisoners. What will they say if the Court does it? I, shall not agree to that on any account."
The president looked at his watch. "It is a pity, but what's to be done?" and handed the questions to the foreman to read out. All got up, and the foreman, stepping from foot to foot, coughed, and read the questions and the answers. All the Court, secretary, advocates, and even the public prosecutor, expressed surprise. The prisoners sat impassive, evidently not understanding the meaning of the answers. Everybody sat down again, and the president asked the prosecutor what punishments the prisoners were to be subjected to.
The prosecutor, glad of his unexpected success in getting Maslova convicted, and attributing the success entirely to his own eloquence, looked up the necessary information, rose and said: "With Simeon Kartinkin I should deal according to Statute 1,452 paragraph 93. Euphemia Botchkova according to Statute . . ., etc. Katerina Maslova according to Statute . . ., etc."
All three punishments were the heaviest that could he inflicted.
"The Court will adjourn to consider the sentence," said the president, rising. Everybody rose after him, and with the pleasant feeling of a task well done began to leave the room or move about in it.
"D'you know, sirs, we have made a shameful hash of it?" said Peter Gerasimovitch, approaching Nekhludoff, to whom the foreman was relating something. "Why, we've got her to Siberia."
"What are you saying?" exclaimed Nekhludoff. This time he did not notice the teacher's familiarity.
"Why, we did not put in our answer 'Guilty, but without intent of causing death.' The secretary just told me the public prosecutor is for condemning her to 15 years' penal servitude."
"Well, but it was decided so," said the foreman.
Peter Gerasimovitch began to dispute this, saying that since she did not take the money it followed naturally that she could not have had any intention of committing murder.
"But I read the answer before going out," said the foreman, defending himself, "and nobody objected."
"I had just then gone out of the room," said Peter Gerasimovitch, turning to Nekhludoff, "and your thoughts must have been wool-gathering to let the thing pass."
"I never imagined this," Nekhludoff replied.
"Oh, you didn't?"
"Oh, well, we can get it put right," said Nekhludoff.
"Oh, dear no; it's finished."
Nekhludoff looked at the prisoners. They whose fate was being decided still sat motionless behind the grating in front of the soldiers. Maslova was smiling. Another feeling stirred in Nekhludoff's soul. Up to now, expecting her acquittal and thinking she would remain in the town, he was uncertain how to act towards her. Any kind of relations with her would be so very difficult. But Siberia and penal servitude at once cut off every possibility of any kind of relations with her. The wounded bird would stop struggling in the game-bag, and no longer remind him of its existence.
庭長(zhǎng)終于結(jié)束發(fā)言，灑脫地拿起問(wèn)題表，交給走到他跟前的首席陪審員。陪審員紛紛起立，因?yàn)榭梢酝送ザ吲d，但又仿佛害臊似的，兩手不知往哪兒擱，一個(gè)個(gè)走進(jìn)議事室。等他們走進(jìn)去一關(guān)上門(mén)，就有一個(gè)憲兵來(lái)到門(mén)口，從刀鞘里拔出軍刀擱在肩上，在門(mén)外站住。法官們站起來(lái)，走出去。被告?zhèn)円脖粠ё吡恕?BR> 陪審員走進(jìn)議事室，象原先一樣，第一件事就是掏出煙來(lái)吸。剛才在法庭里，他們坐在各自的座位上，多少都覺(jué)得自己的處境有點(diǎn)尷尬，自己的行為有點(diǎn)做作。但是一走進(jìn)議事室開(kāi)始吸煙，這種感覺(jué)就過(guò)去了。你們?nèi)玑屩刎?fù)，在議事室里分頭坐下，頓時(shí)興致勃勃地交談起來(lái)。
“那姑娘沒(méi)有罪，她是一時(shí)糊涂，”好心腸的商人說(shuō)，“應(yīng)該從寬發(fā)落才是?！?BR> “這正是我們要討論的，”首席陪審員說(shuō)?！拔覀儾荒軕{個(gè)人印象辦事?！?BR> “庭長(zhǎng)的總結(jié)做得很好，”那個(gè)上校說(shuō)。
“哼，太好了！我差一點(diǎn)聽(tīng)得睡著了。”
“要是瑪絲洛娃沒(méi)有同他們串通好，他們不可能知道有這么一筆錢。關(guān)鍵就在這里，”臉型象*人的店員說(shuō)。
“那么您的意思是說(shuō)，錢是她偷的咯？”一個(gè)陪審員問(wèn)道。
“這話我說(shuō)什么也不信，”好心腸的商人叫起來(lái)，“全部勾當(dāng)都是那個(gè)紅眼睛的女騙子干的?！?BR> “他們都是一路貨，”上校說(shuō)。
“可是她說(shuō)她沒(méi)有踏進(jìn)那個(gè)房門(mén)?！?BR> “您太相信她了。我這輩子說(shuō)什么也不會(huì)相信那個(gè)賤貨的?！?BR> “不過(guò)，您光是不相信她，也不解決問(wèn)題，”店員說(shuō)。
“鑰匙在她手里?！?BR> “在她手里又怎么樣？”商人反駁說(shuō)。
“那么戒指呢？”
“她不是一再講了嗎，”商人又叫起來(lái)，“那買賣人脾氣暴躁，再加喝了酒，就把她狠狠揍了一頓。后來(lái)呢，自然又疼她了。他就說(shuō)：‘這個(gè)給你，別哭了?！莻€(gè)家伙，據(jù)說(shuō)身高二俄尺十二俄寸，體重有八普特①呢！”
--------
①1普特等于16．38公斤，8普特約合131公斤。
“這些都無(wú)關(guān)緊要，”彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇打斷他的話說(shuō)，“問(wèn)題在于這事是她策劃和教唆的呢，還是那兩個(gè)茶房？”
“不可能光是那兩個(gè)茶房干的。鑰匙在她手里嘛。”
他們就這樣七嘴八舌地議論了好一陣。
“對(duì)不起，諸位先生，”首席陪審員說(shuō)，“咱們坐到桌子旁邊來(lái)討論吧。請(qǐng)，”他說(shuō)著在主席位子上坐下。
“那種姑娘都是壞蛋，”店員說(shuō)。為了證實(shí)瑪絲洛娃是主犯，他就講到他的一個(gè)朋友怎樣在林蔭路上被一個(gè)這樣的姑娘偷走了懷表。
上校就乘機(jī)講了一個(gè)更加驚人的銀茶炊失竊的案子。
“諸位先生，大家請(qǐng)按問(wèn)題次序討論，”首席陪審員用鉛筆敲敲桌子說(shuō)。
大家都住了口。要討論的問(wèn)題有這樣幾個(gè)：
（一）西蒙·彼得羅夫·卡爾津金，克拉比文縣包爾基村農(nóng)民，現(xiàn)年三十三歲。他有沒(méi)有犯下下述罪行：一八八×年一月十七日在某城蓄意對(duì)商人斯梅里科夫謀財(cái)害命，串通他人在白蘭地酒里放入毒藥，致使斯梅里科夫死亡，并盜竊他的錢財(cái)約二千五百盧布和鉆石戒指一枚？
（二）小市民葉菲米雅·包奇科娃，現(xiàn)年四十三歲，她有沒(méi)有犯第一個(gè)問(wèn)題里所列舉的罪行？
（三）小市民葉卡吉琳娜·米哈依洛夫娜·瑪絲洛娃，現(xiàn)年二十七歲，她有沒(méi)有犯第一個(gè)問(wèn)題里所列舉的罪行？
（四）如果被告葉菲米雅·包奇科娃沒(méi)有犯第一個(gè)問(wèn)題里所列舉的罪行，那么她有沒(méi)有犯下下述罪行：一八八×年一月十七日在某城摩爾旅館服務(wù)時(shí)，從投宿該旅館商人斯梅里科夫房?jī)?nèi)鎖著的皮箱中盜竊現(xiàn)款二千五百盧布，并為此用隨身帶去的鑰匙開(kāi)啟皮箱？
首席陪審員把第一個(gè)問(wèn)題念了一遍。
“怎么樣，諸位先生？”
對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題大家很快作了回答。大家一致同意說(shuō)：“是的，他犯了罪，”——認(rèn)定他參與謀財(cái)害命。只有一個(gè)上了年紀(jì)的勞動(dòng)組合成員不同意認(rèn)定卡爾津金有罪，不論什么問(wèn)題，他都為被告開(kāi)脫。
首席陪審員以為他不懂法律，就向他解釋，不論從哪方面看，卡爾津金和包奇科娃無(wú)疑都是有罪的，但他回答說(shuō)他也明白這一點(diǎn)，但還是寬大為懷?！拔覀冏约阂膊皇鞘ト?，”他堅(jiān)持自己的意見(jiàn)說(shuō)。
至于同包奇科娃有關(guān)的第二個(gè)問(wèn)題，經(jīng)過(guò)長(zhǎng)時(shí)間討論和解釋以后，大家都認(rèn)為：“她沒(méi)有犯罪，”因?yàn)檎f(shuō)她參與毒死人命案缺乏確鑿的證據(jù)，這一點(diǎn)她的律師尤其強(qiáng)調(diào)。
商人想替瑪絲洛娃開(kāi)脫罪責(zé)，就堅(jiān)持包奇科娃是罪魁禍?zhǔn)?。好幾個(gè)陪審員都同意他的意見(jiàn)，但首席陪審員要嚴(yán)格按法律辦事，認(rèn)為說(shuō)包奇科娃是毒死人命案的同謀犯根據(jù)不足。
經(jīng)過(guò)長(zhǎng)時(shí)間爭(zhēng)論以后，首席陪審員的意見(jiàn)勝利了。
至于有關(guān)包奇科娃的第四個(gè)問(wèn)題，大家都回答說(shuō)：“是的，她犯了罪，”不過(guò)應(yīng)勞動(dòng)組合成員的要求加了一句：“但可以從寬發(fā)落?！?BR> 同瑪絲洛娃有關(guān)的第三個(gè)問(wèn)題卻引起了一場(chǎng)激烈爭(zhēng)論。首席陪審員堅(jiān)持說(shuō)，她在毒死人命和盜竊錢財(cái)方面都犯了罪，商人不同意他的意見(jiàn)，上校、店員和勞動(dòng)組合成員都支持商人，其余的人動(dòng)搖不定，但首席陪審員的意見(jiàn)逐漸取得優(yōu)勢(shì)，主要因?yàn)榕銓弳T個(gè)個(gè)都累了，情愿附和那種可以早些獲得統(tǒng)一的意見(jiàn)，讓大家離開(kāi)法庭，自由行動(dòng)。
聶赫留朵夫根據(jù)法庭審訊情況和他對(duì)瑪絲洛娃的了解，深信她在盜竊錢財(cái)和毒死人命兩方面都沒(méi)有罪。起初他相信大家會(huì)這樣裁定，但后來(lái)看到，那商人由于貪戀瑪絲洛娃的美色，并且對(duì)這一層直認(rèn)不諱，并且替她辯護(hù)得十分拙劣。同時(shí)由于首席陪審員據(jù)此對(duì)他進(jìn)行攻擊，主要是因?yàn)榇蠹叶祭哿?，因此都傾向于判瑪絲洛娃有罪，聶赫留朵夫很想起來(lái)反駁，但他怕替瑪絲洛娃說(shuō)話，大家就會(huì)立刻發(fā)現(xiàn)他同她的特殊關(guān)系。但他又覺(jué)得這事不能就此罷休，應(yīng)該起來(lái)反駁。他臉上一陣紅，一陣白，剛要開(kāi)口，不料到這時(shí)一直保持沉默的彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇顯然被首席陪審員那種唯我獨(dú)尊的口吻所激怒，突然對(duì)他進(jìn)行反駁，正好說(shuō)出了聶赫留朵夫想說(shuō)的話。
“對(duì)不起，”他說(shuō)，“您說(shuō)她偷了錢，因?yàn)樗需€匙。難道那兩個(gè)茶房就不會(huì)在她走后用萬(wàn)能鑰匙打開(kāi)皮箱嗎？”
“對(duì)呀，對(duì)呀！”商人響應(yīng)說(shuō)。
“再說(shuō)，她也不可能拿那筆錢，因?yàn)榫退奶幘硜?lái)說(shuō)，她沒(méi)有地方好放?！?BR> “對(duì)，我也這么說(shuō)，”商人支持他的意見(jiàn)。
“多半是她到旅館取錢，使那兩個(gè)茶房起了歹心。他們就乘機(jī)作案，事后又把全部罪責(zé)推到她身上?！?BR> 彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇講的時(shí)候情緒很激動(dòng)。首席陪審員也惱火起來(lái)，因此特別固執(zhí)地堅(jiān)持相反的意見(jiàn)，但彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇講得很有道理，多數(shù)人都同意他的話，認(rèn)為瑪絲洛娃并沒(méi)有參與盜竊錢財(cái)和戒指，戒指是商人送給她的。當(dāng)談到她有沒(méi)有參與毒死人命罪時(shí)，熱心替她辯護(hù)的商人說(shuō)，必須裁定她沒(méi)有犯這樣的罪，因?yàn)樗緵](méi)有理由把他毒死。首席陪審員則說(shuō)，不能裁定她無(wú)罪，因?yàn)樗救苏姓J(rèn)藥粉是她放的。
“放是她放的，但她以為那是鴉片，”商人說(shuō)。
“鴉片也能致人死命的，”上校說(shuō)。他喜歡把話岔到題外去，就乘機(jī)講到他的內(nèi)弟媳婦有一次服鴉片自盡，要不是就近有醫(yī)生，及時(shí)搶救，她就沒(méi)命了。上校講得那么動(dòng)聽(tīng)，那么自信，那么威嚴(yán)，誰(shuí)也不敢打斷他的話。只有店員看到上校喜歡離題發(fā)揮，受了他的影響，決定打斷他，好講講他自己的故事。
“有一些人可習(xí)慣了，”他講了起來(lái)，“一次就能服四十滴鴉片。我有一個(gè)親戚……”
但上校不讓他打岔，繼續(xù)講鴉片對(duì)他內(nèi)弟媳婦造成的后果。
“哦，諸位先生，現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)四點(diǎn)多了，”一個(gè)陪審員說(shuō)。
“那么怎么辦，諸位先生，”首席陪審員說(shuō)，“我們就裁定她犯了罪，但沒(méi)有蓄意搶劫，沒(méi)有盜竊財(cái)物。這樣好不好？”
彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇看到自己取得勝利，很得意，就表示同意。
“但應(yīng)該從寬發(fā)落，”商人補(bǔ)了一句。
大家都同意，只有勞動(dòng)組合成員一人堅(jiān)持：“不，她沒(méi)有罪?！?BR> “這樣豈不是說(shuō)，”首席陪審員解釋說(shuō)，“并非蓄意搶劫，也沒(méi)有盜竊財(cái)物。這樣，她也就沒(méi)有罪了?！?BR> “就這么辦吧，再加上要求從寬發(fā)落，那就盡善盡美了，”
商人興高采烈地說(shuō)。
大家爭(zhēng)論得頭昏腦脹，都很疲勞，誰(shuí)也沒(méi)有想到在答案里要加上一句：是有罪，但并非蓄意殺人。
聶赫留朵夫太激動(dòng)了，也沒(méi)有發(fā)覺(jué)這個(gè)疏忽。答案就這樣記錄下來(lái)，被送到庭上。
拉伯雷①寫(xiě)過(guò)一個(gè)法學(xué)家，他在辦案時(shí)引證各種法律條款，念了二十頁(yè)莫名其妙的拉丁文法典，最后卻建議法官擲骰子，看是單數(shù)還是雙數(shù)。是雙數(shù)，就是原告有理；是單數(shù)，就是被告有理。
--------
①拉伯雷（1490—1553）——法國(guó)作家，人文主義者，以諷刺見(jiàn)長(zhǎng)，著有長(zhǎng)篇小說(shuō)《巨人傳》。
今天的情況也是這樣。通過(guò)這個(gè)決定而不是通過(guò)那個(gè)決定，并非因?yàn)榇蠹叶纪膺@個(gè)決定，而是因?yàn)榈谝?，?huì)議主持者的總結(jié)雖然做得那么長(zhǎng)，卻偏偏漏掉平日講慣的那句話：“是的，她有罪，但并非蓄意殺人”；第二，上校講他內(nèi)弟媳婦的事講得太長(zhǎng)，太乏味；第三，聶赫留朵夫當(dāng)時(shí)太激動(dòng)，竟沒(méi)有注意到漏掉“并非蓄意殺人”這個(gè)保留條款，他還以為有了“并非蓄意搶劫”這個(gè)保留條款就足以撤銷公訴；第四，彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇當(dāng)時(shí)不在房間里，首席陪審員重讀問(wèn)題和答案時(shí)，他正好出去了；不過(guò)主要是因?yàn)榇蠹叶几械狡?，都想快點(diǎn)脫身，因此就一致同意那個(gè)可以早一點(diǎn)結(jié)束的決定。
陪審員搖了搖鈴。掮著出鞘軍刀的憲兵把刀放回鞘里，身子閃到一旁。法官紛紛就位。陪審員一個(gè)跟著一個(gè)出來(lái)。
首席陪審員鄭重其事地拿著那張表格。他走到庭長(zhǎng)跟前，把表格遞給他。庭長(zhǎng)看完表格，顯然大為驚訝，雙手一攤，就同其余兩位法官商量。庭長(zhǎng)感到驚訝，因?yàn)榕銓弳T提出了第一個(gè)保留條款：“并非蓄意搶劫”，卻沒(méi)有提出第二個(gè)保留條款：“并非蓄意殺人”。照陪審員這個(gè)決定只能得出這樣的結(jié)論：瑪絲洛娃沒(méi)有盜竊，沒(méi)有搶劫，卻無(wú)緣無(wú)故毒死了一個(gè)人。
“您瞧，他們的答案多么荒唐，”庭長(zhǎng)對(duì)左邊的法官說(shuō)，“這樣她就要被判服苦役，可她又沒(méi)有罪?！?BR> “嗯，她怎么沒(méi)有罪呢？”那個(gè)嚴(yán)厲的法官說(shuō)。
“她就是沒(méi)有罪。依我看，這種情形可以引用第八百一十八條?！保ǖ诎税僖皇藯l規(guī)定：法庭如發(fā)現(xiàn)裁決不當(dāng)，可取消陪審員的決定。）
“您看怎么樣？”庭長(zhǎng)問(wèn)那個(gè)和善的法官。
和善的法官?zèng)]有立刻回答，卻看了看面前那份公文的號(hào)碼，算了算那個(gè)數(shù)目能不能被三除盡。他計(jì)算著，要是能除盡，他就同意。結(jié)果這個(gè)數(shù)目除不盡，但他這人心地善良，還是同意了庭長(zhǎng)的意見(jiàn)。
“我也認(rèn)為應(yīng)該這么辦，”他說(shuō)。
“那么您呢？”庭長(zhǎng)問(wèn)那個(gè)怒容滿面的法官。
“說(shuō)什么也不行，”他斬釘截鐵地回答?！艾F(xiàn)在報(bào)紙上已經(jīng)議論紛紛，說(shuō)陪審員總是替罪犯開(kāi)脫。要是法官也替罪犯開(kāi)脫，人家又會(huì)怎么說(shuō)呢？我說(shuō)什么也不同意?！?BR> 庭長(zhǎng)看了看表。
“很遺憾，可是有什么辦法呢！”他說(shuō)著把那份答案交給首席陪審員宣讀。
全體起立。首席陪審員掉換一只腳站著，咳清喉嚨，把問(wèn)題和答案宣讀了一遍。法庭上的官員，包括書(shū)記官、律師，甚至檢察官，個(gè)個(gè)露出驚訝的神色。
三個(gè)被告都若無(wú)其事地坐在那里，顯然并不了解這答案的利害關(guān)系。大家又坐下來(lái)。庭長(zhǎng)問(wèn)副檢察官，他認(rèn)為應(yīng)該判處那幾個(gè)被告什么刑罰。
這樣處理瑪絲洛娃使副檢察官感到意外的成功。他心里十分高興，并把這成功歸因于他出色的口才。他查了查法典，站起來(lái)說(shuō)：
“我認(rèn)為處分西蒙·卡爾津金應(yīng)根據(jù)第一千四百五十二條和第一千四百五十三條，處分葉菲米雅·包奇科娃應(yīng)根據(jù)第一千六百五十九條，處分葉卡吉琳娜·瑪絲洛娃應(yīng)根據(jù)第一千四百五十四條?！?BR> 這幾條都是法律所能判處的最重刑罰。
“審理暫停，法官商議判決，”庭長(zhǎng)一邊說(shuō)，一邊站起來(lái)。
大家都隨著他起立，帶著辦完一件好事的輕松心情紛紛走出法庭，或者在法庭里來(lái)回走動(dòng)。
“哦，老兄，我們做了一件錯(cuò)事，太丟人了，”彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇走到聶赫留朵夫跟前說(shuō)，這當(dāng)兒首席陪審員正在對(duì)聶赫留朵夫講話?！拔覀冞@是把她送去服苦役呀！”
“您說(shuō)什么？”聶赫留朵夫叫起來(lái)，這會(huì)兒他完全不計(jì)較這位教師不拘禮節(jié)的態(tài)度。
“可不是，”他說(shuō)?！拔覀?cè)诖鸢咐餂](méi)有注明：‘她有罪，但并非蓄意殺人。’剛才書(shū)記官告訴我：副檢察官判她服十五年苦役?！?BR> “我們不就是這樣裁定的嗎？”首席陪審員說(shuō)。
彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇爭(zhēng)議說(shuō)，既然她沒(méi)有偷錢，她當(dāng)然不可能蓄意殺人，這是理所當(dāng)然的。
“剛才離開(kāi)議事室以前我不是把答案念了一遍嗎？”首席陪審員辯白說(shuō)?！爱?dāng)時(shí)誰(shuí)也沒(méi)有反對(duì)?！?BR> “當(dāng)時(shí)我正好離開(kāi)議事室，”彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇說(shuō)?！澳趺匆矔?huì)沒(méi)注意？”
“我萬(wàn)萬(wàn)沒(méi)有想到，”聶赫留朵夫說(shuō)。
“哼，您沒(méi)有想到！”
“這事還可以補(bǔ)救，”聶赫留朵夫說(shuō)。
“唉，不行，現(xiàn)在全完了?！?BR> 聶赫留朵夫瞧了瞧那幾個(gè)被告。他們，這幾個(gè)命運(yùn)已定的人，仍舊呆呆地坐在欄桿和士兵中間?，斀z洛娃不知為什么在微笑。聶赫留朵夫的心靈里有一種卑劣的感情在蠢蠢活動(dòng)。他原以為她會(huì)無(wú)罪開(kāi)釋并將留在城里，因此感到忐忑不安，不知道該怎樣對(duì)待她才好。就他來(lái)說(shuō)，不論怎樣對(duì)待她都很為難。如今呢，服苦役，去西伯利亞，這樣就一筆勾銷了同她保持任何關(guān)系的可能：那只負(fù)傷而沒(méi)有死去的鳥(niǎo)就不會(huì)再在獵物袋里撲騰，也就不會(huì)使人想起它了。
At last the president finished his speech, and lifting the list of questions with a graceful movement of his arm he handed it to the foreman, who came up to take it. The jury, glad to be able to get into the debating-court, got up one after the other and left the room, looking as if a bit ashamed of themselves and again not knowing what to do with their hands. As soon as the door was closed behind them a gendarme came up to it, pulled his sword out of the scabbard, and, holding it up against his shoulder, stood at the door. The judges got up and went away. The prisoners were also led out. When the jury came into the debating-room the first thing they did was to take out their cigarettes, as before, and begin smoking. The sense of the unnaturalness and falseness of their position, which all of them had experienced while sitting in their places in the court, passed when they entered the debating-room and started smoking, and they settled down with a feeling of relief and at once began an animated conversation.
"'Tisn't the girl's fault. She's got mixed up in it," said the kindly merchant. "We must recommend her to mercy."
"That's just what we are going to consider," said the foreman. "We must not give way to our personal impressions."
"The president's summing up was good," remarked the colonel.
"Good? Why, it nearly sent me to sleep!"
"The chief point is that the servants could have known nothing about the money if Maslova had not been in accord with them," said the clerk of Jewish extraction.
"Well, do you think that it was she who stole the money?" asked one of the jury.
"I will never believe it," cried the kindly merchant; "it was all that red-eyed hag's doing."
"They are a nice lot, all of them," said the colonel.
"But she says she never went into the room."
"Oh, believe her by all means."
"I should not believe that jade, not for the world."
"Whether you believe her or not does not settle the question," said the clerk.
"The girl had the key," said the colonel.
"What if she had?" retorted the merchant.
"And the ring?"
"But didn't she say all about it?" again cried the merchant. "The fellow had a temper of his own, and had had a drop too much besides, and gave the girl a licking; what could be simpler? Well, then he's sorry--quite naturally. 'There, never mind,' says he; 'take this.' Why, I heard them say he was six foot five high; I should think he must have weighed about 20 stones."
"That's not the point," said Peter Gerasimovitch. "The question is, whether she was the instigator and inciter in this affair, or the servants?"
"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.
The third question, concerning Maslova, raised a fierce dispute. The foreman maintained she was guilty both of the poisoning and the theft, to which the merchant would not agree. The colonel, the clerk and the old artelshik sided with the merchant, the rest seemed shaky, and the opinion of the foreman began to gain ground, chiefly because all the jurymen were getting tired, and preferred to take up the view that would bring them sooner to a decision and thus liberate them.
From all that had passed, and from his former knowledge of Maslova, Nekhludoff was certain that she was innocent of both the theft and the poisoning. And he felt sure that all the others would come to the same conclusion. When he saw that the merchant's awkward defence (evidently based on his physical admiration for her, which he did not even try to hide) and the foreman's insistence, and especially everybody's weariness, were all tending to her condemnation, he longed to state his objections, yet dared not, lest his relations with Maslova should be discovered. He felt he could not allow things to go on without stating his objection; and, blushing and growing pale again, was about to speak when Peter Gerasimovitch, irritated by the authoritative manner of the foreman, began to raise his objections and said the very things Nekhludoff was about to say.
"Allow me one moment," he said. "You seem to think that her having the key proves she is guilty of the theft; but what could be easier than for the servants to open the portmanteau with a false key after she was gone?"
"Of course, of course," said the merchant.
"She could not have taken the money, because in her position she would hardly know what to do with it."
"That's just what I say," remarked the merchant.
"But it is very likely that her coming put the idea into the servants' heads and that they grasped the opportunity and shoved all the blame on her." Peter Gerasimovitch spoke so irritably that the foreman became irritated too, and went on obstinately defending the opposite views; but Peter Gerasimovitch spoke so convincingly that the majority agreed with him, and decided that Maslova was not guilty of stealing the money and that the ring was given her.
But when the question of her having taken part in the poisoning was raised, her zealous defender, the merchant, declared that she must be acquitted, because she could have no reason for the poisoning. The foreman, however, said that it was impossible to acquit her, because she herself had pleaded guilty to having given the powder.
"Yes, but thinking it was opium," said the merchant.
"Opium can also deprive one of life," said the colonel, who was fond of wandering from the subject, and he began telling how his brother-in-law's wife would have died of an overdose of opium if there had not been a doctor near at hand to take the necessary measures. The colonel told his story so impressively, with such self-possession and dignity, that no one had the courage to interrupt him. Only the clerk, infected by his example, decided to break in with a story of his own: "There are some who get so used to it that they can take 40 drops. I have a relative--," but the colonel would not stand the interruption, and went on to relate what effects the opium had on his brother-in-law's wife.
"But, gentlemen, do you know it is getting on towards five o'clock?" said one of the jury.
"Well, gentlemen, what are we to say, then?" inquired the foreman. "Shall we say she is guilty, but without intent to rob? And without stealing any property? Will that do?" Peter Gerasimovitch, pleased with his victory, agreed.
"But she must be recommended to mercy," said the merchant.
All agreed; only the old artelshik insisted that they should say "Not guilty."
"It comes to the same thing," explained the foreman; "without intent to rob, and without stealing any property. Therefore, 'Not guilty,' that's evident."
"All right; that'll do. And we recommend her to mercy," said the merchant, gaily.
They were all so tired, so confused by the discussions, that nobody thought of saying that she was guilty of giving the powder but without the intent of taking life. Nekhludoff was so excited that he did not notice this omission, and so the answers were written down in the form agreed upon and taken to the court.
Rabelais says that a lawyer who was trying a case quoted all sorts of laws, read 20 pages of judicial senseless Latin, and then proposed to the judges to throw dice, and if the numbers proved odd the defendant would he right, if not, the plaintiff.
It was much the same in this case. The resolution was taken, not because everybody agreed upon it, but because the president, who had been summing up at such length, omitted to say what he always said on such occasions, that the answer might be, "Yes, guilty, but without the intent of taking life;" because the colonel had related the story of his brother-in-law's wife at such great length; because Nekhludoff was too excited to notice that the proviso "without intent to take life" had been omitted, and thought that the words "without intent" nullified the conviction; because Peter Gerasimovitch had retired from the room while the questions and answers were being read, and chiefly because, being tired, and wishing to get away as soon as possible, all were ready to agree with the decision which would bring matters to an end soonest.
The jurymen rang the bell. The gendarme who had stood outside the door with his sword drawn put the sword back into the scabbard and stepped aside. The judges took their seats and the jury came out one by one.
The foreman brought in the paper with an air of solemnity and handed it to the president, who looked at it, and, spreading out his hands in astonishment, turned to consult his companions. The president was surprised that the jury, having put in a proviso--without intent to rob--did not put in a second proviso--without intent to take life. From the decision of the jury it followed that Maslova had not stolen, nor robbed, and yet poisoned a man without any apparent reason.
"Just see what an absurd decision they have come to," he whispered to the member on his left. "This means penal servitude in Siberia, and she is innocent."
"Surely you do not mean to say she is innocent?" answered the serious member.
"Yes, she is positively innocent. I think this is a case for putting Article 817 into practice (Article 817 states that if the Court considers the decision of the jury unjust it may set it aside)."
"What do you think?" said the president, turning to the other member. The kindly member did not answer at once. He looked at the number on a paper before him and added up the figures; the sum would not divide by three. He had settled in his mind that if it did divide by three he would agree to the president's proposal, but though the sum would not so divide his kindness made him agree all the same.
"I, too, think it should he done," he said.
"And you?" asked the president, turning to the serious member.
"On no account," he answered, firmly. "As it is, the papers accuse the jury of acquitting prisoners. What will they say if the Court does it? I, shall not agree to that on any account."
The president looked at his watch. "It is a pity, but what's to be done?" and handed the questions to the foreman to read out. All got up, and the foreman, stepping from foot to foot, coughed, and read the questions and the answers. All the Court, secretary, advocates, and even the public prosecutor, expressed surprise. The prisoners sat impassive, evidently not understanding the meaning of the answers. Everybody sat down again, and the president asked the prosecutor what punishments the prisoners were to be subjected to.
The prosecutor, glad of his unexpected success in getting Maslova convicted, and attributing the success entirely to his own eloquence, looked up the necessary information, rose and said: "With Simeon Kartinkin I should deal according to Statute 1,452 paragraph 93. Euphemia Botchkova according to Statute . . ., etc. Katerina Maslova according to Statute . . ., etc."
All three punishments were the heaviest that could he inflicted.
"The Court will adjourn to consider the sentence," said the president, rising. Everybody rose after him, and with the pleasant feeling of a task well done began to leave the room or move about in it.
"D'you know, sirs, we have made a shameful hash of it?" said Peter Gerasimovitch, approaching Nekhludoff, to whom the foreman was relating something. "Why, we've got her to Siberia."
"What are you saying?" exclaimed Nekhludoff. This time he did not notice the teacher's familiarity.
"Why, we did not put in our answer 'Guilty, but without intent of causing death.' The secretary just told me the public prosecutor is for condemning her to 15 years' penal servitude."
"Well, but it was decided so," said the foreman.
Peter Gerasimovitch began to dispute this, saying that since she did not take the money it followed naturally that she could not have had any intention of committing murder.
"But I read the answer before going out," said the foreman, defending himself, "and nobody objected."
"I had just then gone out of the room," said Peter Gerasimovitch, turning to Nekhludoff, "and your thoughts must have been wool-gathering to let the thing pass."
"I never imagined this," Nekhludoff replied.
"Oh, you didn't?"
"Oh, well, we can get it put right," said Nekhludoff.
"Oh, dear no; it's finished."
Nekhludoff looked at the prisoners. They whose fate was being decided still sat motionless behind the grating in front of the soldiers. Maslova was smiling. Another feeling stirred in Nekhludoff's soul. Up to now, expecting her acquittal and thinking she would remain in the town, he was uncertain how to act towards her. Any kind of relations with her would be so very difficult. But Siberia and penal servitude at once cut off every possibility of any kind of relations with her. The wounded bird would stop struggling in the game-bag, and no longer remind him of its existence.
庭長(zhǎng)終于結(jié)束發(fā)言，灑脫地拿起問(wèn)題表，交給走到他跟前的首席陪審員。陪審員紛紛起立，因?yàn)榭梢酝送ザ吲d，但又仿佛害臊似的，兩手不知往哪兒擱，一個(gè)個(gè)走進(jìn)議事室。等他們走進(jìn)去一關(guān)上門(mén)，就有一個(gè)憲兵來(lái)到門(mén)口，從刀鞘里拔出軍刀擱在肩上，在門(mén)外站住。法官們站起來(lái)，走出去。被告?zhèn)円脖粠ё吡恕?BR> 陪審員走進(jìn)議事室，象原先一樣，第一件事就是掏出煙來(lái)吸。剛才在法庭里，他們坐在各自的座位上，多少都覺(jué)得自己的處境有點(diǎn)尷尬，自己的行為有點(diǎn)做作。但是一走進(jìn)議事室開(kāi)始吸煙，這種感覺(jué)就過(guò)去了。你們?nèi)玑屩刎?fù)，在議事室里分頭坐下，頓時(shí)興致勃勃地交談起來(lái)。
“那姑娘沒(méi)有罪，她是一時(shí)糊涂，”好心腸的商人說(shuō)，“應(yīng)該從寬發(fā)落才是?！?BR> “這正是我們要討論的，”首席陪審員說(shuō)?！拔覀儾荒軕{個(gè)人印象辦事?！?BR> “庭長(zhǎng)的總結(jié)做得很好，”那個(gè)上校說(shuō)。
“哼，太好了！我差一點(diǎn)聽(tīng)得睡著了。”
“要是瑪絲洛娃沒(méi)有同他們串通好，他們不可能知道有這么一筆錢。關(guān)鍵就在這里，”臉型象*人的店員說(shuō)。
“那么您的意思是說(shuō)，錢是她偷的咯？”一個(gè)陪審員問(wèn)道。
“這話我說(shuō)什么也不信，”好心腸的商人叫起來(lái)，“全部勾當(dāng)都是那個(gè)紅眼睛的女騙子干的?！?BR> “他們都是一路貨，”上校說(shuō)。
“可是她說(shuō)她沒(méi)有踏進(jìn)那個(gè)房門(mén)?！?BR> “您太相信她了。我這輩子說(shuō)什么也不會(huì)相信那個(gè)賤貨的?！?BR> “不過(guò)，您光是不相信她，也不解決問(wèn)題，”店員說(shuō)。
“鑰匙在她手里?！?BR> “在她手里又怎么樣？”商人反駁說(shuō)。
“那么戒指呢？”
“她不是一再講了嗎，”商人又叫起來(lái)，“那買賣人脾氣暴躁，再加喝了酒，就把她狠狠揍了一頓。后來(lái)呢，自然又疼她了。他就說(shuō)：‘這個(gè)給你，別哭了?！莻€(gè)家伙，據(jù)說(shuō)身高二俄尺十二俄寸，體重有八普特①呢！”
--------
①1普特等于16．38公斤，8普特約合131公斤。
“這些都無(wú)關(guān)緊要，”彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇打斷他的話說(shuō)，“問(wèn)題在于這事是她策劃和教唆的呢，還是那兩個(gè)茶房？”
“不可能光是那兩個(gè)茶房干的。鑰匙在她手里嘛。”
他們就這樣七嘴八舌地議論了好一陣。
“對(duì)不起，諸位先生，”首席陪審員說(shuō)，“咱們坐到桌子旁邊來(lái)討論吧。請(qǐng)，”他說(shuō)著在主席位子上坐下。
“那種姑娘都是壞蛋，”店員說(shuō)。為了證實(shí)瑪絲洛娃是主犯，他就講到他的一個(gè)朋友怎樣在林蔭路上被一個(gè)這樣的姑娘偷走了懷表。
上校就乘機(jī)講了一個(gè)更加驚人的銀茶炊失竊的案子。
“諸位先生，大家請(qǐng)按問(wèn)題次序討論，”首席陪審員用鉛筆敲敲桌子說(shuō)。
大家都住了口。要討論的問(wèn)題有這樣幾個(gè)：
（一）西蒙·彼得羅夫·卡爾津金，克拉比文縣包爾基村農(nóng)民，現(xiàn)年三十三歲。他有沒(méi)有犯下下述罪行：一八八×年一月十七日在某城蓄意對(duì)商人斯梅里科夫謀財(cái)害命，串通他人在白蘭地酒里放入毒藥，致使斯梅里科夫死亡，并盜竊他的錢財(cái)約二千五百盧布和鉆石戒指一枚？
（二）小市民葉菲米雅·包奇科娃，現(xiàn)年四十三歲，她有沒(méi)有犯第一個(gè)問(wèn)題里所列舉的罪行？
（三）小市民葉卡吉琳娜·米哈依洛夫娜·瑪絲洛娃，現(xiàn)年二十七歲，她有沒(méi)有犯第一個(gè)問(wèn)題里所列舉的罪行？
（四）如果被告葉菲米雅·包奇科娃沒(méi)有犯第一個(gè)問(wèn)題里所列舉的罪行，那么她有沒(méi)有犯下下述罪行：一八八×年一月十七日在某城摩爾旅館服務(wù)時(shí)，從投宿該旅館商人斯梅里科夫房?jī)?nèi)鎖著的皮箱中盜竊現(xiàn)款二千五百盧布，并為此用隨身帶去的鑰匙開(kāi)啟皮箱？
首席陪審員把第一個(gè)問(wèn)題念了一遍。
“怎么樣，諸位先生？”
對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題大家很快作了回答。大家一致同意說(shuō)：“是的，他犯了罪，”——認(rèn)定他參與謀財(cái)害命。只有一個(gè)上了年紀(jì)的勞動(dòng)組合成員不同意認(rèn)定卡爾津金有罪，不論什么問(wèn)題，他都為被告開(kāi)脫。
首席陪審員以為他不懂法律，就向他解釋，不論從哪方面看，卡爾津金和包奇科娃無(wú)疑都是有罪的，但他回答說(shuō)他也明白這一點(diǎn)，但還是寬大為懷?！拔覀冏约阂膊皇鞘ト?，”他堅(jiān)持自己的意見(jiàn)說(shuō)。
至于同包奇科娃有關(guān)的第二個(gè)問(wèn)題，經(jīng)過(guò)長(zhǎng)時(shí)間討論和解釋以后，大家都認(rèn)為：“她沒(méi)有犯罪，”因?yàn)檎f(shuō)她參與毒死人命案缺乏確鑿的證據(jù)，這一點(diǎn)她的律師尤其強(qiáng)調(diào)。
商人想替瑪絲洛娃開(kāi)脫罪責(zé)，就堅(jiān)持包奇科娃是罪魁禍?zhǔn)?。好幾個(gè)陪審員都同意他的意見(jiàn)，但首席陪審員要嚴(yán)格按法律辦事，認(rèn)為說(shuō)包奇科娃是毒死人命案的同謀犯根據(jù)不足。
經(jīng)過(guò)長(zhǎng)時(shí)間爭(zhēng)論以后，首席陪審員的意見(jiàn)勝利了。
至于有關(guān)包奇科娃的第四個(gè)問(wèn)題，大家都回答說(shuō)：“是的，她犯了罪，”不過(guò)應(yīng)勞動(dòng)組合成員的要求加了一句：“但可以從寬發(fā)落?！?BR> 同瑪絲洛娃有關(guān)的第三個(gè)問(wèn)題卻引起了一場(chǎng)激烈爭(zhēng)論。首席陪審員堅(jiān)持說(shuō)，她在毒死人命和盜竊錢財(cái)方面都犯了罪，商人不同意他的意見(jiàn)，上校、店員和勞動(dòng)組合成員都支持商人，其余的人動(dòng)搖不定，但首席陪審員的意見(jiàn)逐漸取得優(yōu)勢(shì)，主要因?yàn)榕銓弳T個(gè)個(gè)都累了，情愿附和那種可以早些獲得統(tǒng)一的意見(jiàn)，讓大家離開(kāi)法庭，自由行動(dòng)。
聶赫留朵夫根據(jù)法庭審訊情況和他對(duì)瑪絲洛娃的了解，深信她在盜竊錢財(cái)和毒死人命兩方面都沒(méi)有罪。起初他相信大家會(huì)這樣裁定，但后來(lái)看到，那商人由于貪戀瑪絲洛娃的美色，并且對(duì)這一層直認(rèn)不諱，并且替她辯護(hù)得十分拙劣。同時(shí)由于首席陪審員據(jù)此對(duì)他進(jìn)行攻擊，主要是因?yàn)榇蠹叶祭哿?，因此都傾向于判瑪絲洛娃有罪，聶赫留朵夫很想起來(lái)反駁，但他怕替瑪絲洛娃說(shuō)話，大家就會(huì)立刻發(fā)現(xiàn)他同她的特殊關(guān)系。但他又覺(jué)得這事不能就此罷休，應(yīng)該起來(lái)反駁。他臉上一陣紅，一陣白，剛要開(kāi)口，不料到這時(shí)一直保持沉默的彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇顯然被首席陪審員那種唯我獨(dú)尊的口吻所激怒，突然對(duì)他進(jìn)行反駁，正好說(shuō)出了聶赫留朵夫想說(shuō)的話。
“對(duì)不起，”他說(shuō)，“您說(shuō)她偷了錢，因?yàn)樗需€匙。難道那兩個(gè)茶房就不會(huì)在她走后用萬(wàn)能鑰匙打開(kāi)皮箱嗎？”
“對(duì)呀，對(duì)呀！”商人響應(yīng)說(shuō)。
“再說(shuō)，她也不可能拿那筆錢，因?yàn)榫退奶幘硜?lái)說(shuō)，她沒(méi)有地方好放?！?BR> “對(duì)，我也這么說(shuō)，”商人支持他的意見(jiàn)。
“多半是她到旅館取錢，使那兩個(gè)茶房起了歹心。他們就乘機(jī)作案，事后又把全部罪責(zé)推到她身上?！?BR> 彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇講的時(shí)候情緒很激動(dòng)。首席陪審員也惱火起來(lái)，因此特別固執(zhí)地堅(jiān)持相反的意見(jiàn)，但彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇講得很有道理，多數(shù)人都同意他的話，認(rèn)為瑪絲洛娃并沒(méi)有參與盜竊錢財(cái)和戒指，戒指是商人送給她的。當(dāng)談到她有沒(méi)有參與毒死人命罪時(shí)，熱心替她辯護(hù)的商人說(shuō)，必須裁定她沒(méi)有犯這樣的罪，因?yàn)樗緵](méi)有理由把他毒死。首席陪審員則說(shuō)，不能裁定她無(wú)罪，因?yàn)樗救苏姓J(rèn)藥粉是她放的。
“放是她放的，但她以為那是鴉片，”商人說(shuō)。
“鴉片也能致人死命的，”上校說(shuō)。他喜歡把話岔到題外去，就乘機(jī)講到他的內(nèi)弟媳婦有一次服鴉片自盡，要不是就近有醫(yī)生，及時(shí)搶救，她就沒(méi)命了。上校講得那么動(dòng)聽(tīng)，那么自信，那么威嚴(yán)，誰(shuí)也不敢打斷他的話。只有店員看到上校喜歡離題發(fā)揮，受了他的影響，決定打斷他，好講講他自己的故事。
“有一些人可習(xí)慣了，”他講了起來(lái)，“一次就能服四十滴鴉片。我有一個(gè)親戚……”
但上校不讓他打岔，繼續(xù)講鴉片對(duì)他內(nèi)弟媳婦造成的后果。
“哦，諸位先生，現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)四點(diǎn)多了，”一個(gè)陪審員說(shuō)。
“那么怎么辦，諸位先生，”首席陪審員說(shuō)，“我們就裁定她犯了罪，但沒(méi)有蓄意搶劫，沒(méi)有盜竊財(cái)物。這樣好不好？”
彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇看到自己取得勝利，很得意，就表示同意。
“但應(yīng)該從寬發(fā)落，”商人補(bǔ)了一句。
大家都同意，只有勞動(dòng)組合成員一人堅(jiān)持：“不，她沒(méi)有罪?！?BR> “這樣豈不是說(shuō)，”首席陪審員解釋說(shuō)，“并非蓄意搶劫，也沒(méi)有盜竊財(cái)物。這樣，她也就沒(méi)有罪了?！?BR> “就這么辦吧，再加上要求從寬發(fā)落，那就盡善盡美了，”
商人興高采烈地說(shuō)。
大家爭(zhēng)論得頭昏腦脹，都很疲勞，誰(shuí)也沒(méi)有想到在答案里要加上一句：是有罪，但并非蓄意殺人。
聶赫留朵夫太激動(dòng)了，也沒(méi)有發(fā)覺(jué)這個(gè)疏忽。答案就這樣記錄下來(lái)，被送到庭上。
拉伯雷①寫(xiě)過(guò)一個(gè)法學(xué)家，他在辦案時(shí)引證各種法律條款，念了二十頁(yè)莫名其妙的拉丁文法典，最后卻建議法官擲骰子，看是單數(shù)還是雙數(shù)。是雙數(shù)，就是原告有理；是單數(shù)，就是被告有理。
--------
①拉伯雷（1490—1553）——法國(guó)作家，人文主義者，以諷刺見(jiàn)長(zhǎng)，著有長(zhǎng)篇小說(shuō)《巨人傳》。
今天的情況也是這樣。通過(guò)這個(gè)決定而不是通過(guò)那個(gè)決定，并非因?yàn)榇蠹叶纪膺@個(gè)決定，而是因?yàn)榈谝?，?huì)議主持者的總結(jié)雖然做得那么長(zhǎng)，卻偏偏漏掉平日講慣的那句話：“是的，她有罪，但并非蓄意殺人”；第二，上校講他內(nèi)弟媳婦的事講得太長(zhǎng)，太乏味；第三，聶赫留朵夫當(dāng)時(shí)太激動(dòng)，竟沒(méi)有注意到漏掉“并非蓄意殺人”這個(gè)保留條款，他還以為有了“并非蓄意搶劫”這個(gè)保留條款就足以撤銷公訴；第四，彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇當(dāng)時(shí)不在房間里，首席陪審員重讀問(wèn)題和答案時(shí)，他正好出去了；不過(guò)主要是因?yàn)榇蠹叶几械狡?，都想快點(diǎn)脫身，因此就一致同意那個(gè)可以早一點(diǎn)結(jié)束的決定。
陪審員搖了搖鈴。掮著出鞘軍刀的憲兵把刀放回鞘里，身子閃到一旁。法官紛紛就位。陪審員一個(gè)跟著一個(gè)出來(lái)。
首席陪審員鄭重其事地拿著那張表格。他走到庭長(zhǎng)跟前，把表格遞給他。庭長(zhǎng)看完表格，顯然大為驚訝，雙手一攤，就同其余兩位法官商量。庭長(zhǎng)感到驚訝，因?yàn)榕銓弳T提出了第一個(gè)保留條款：“并非蓄意搶劫”，卻沒(méi)有提出第二個(gè)保留條款：“并非蓄意殺人”。照陪審員這個(gè)決定只能得出這樣的結(jié)論：瑪絲洛娃沒(méi)有盜竊，沒(méi)有搶劫，卻無(wú)緣無(wú)故毒死了一個(gè)人。
“您瞧，他們的答案多么荒唐，”庭長(zhǎng)對(duì)左邊的法官說(shuō)，“這樣她就要被判服苦役，可她又沒(méi)有罪?！?BR> “嗯，她怎么沒(méi)有罪呢？”那個(gè)嚴(yán)厲的法官說(shuō)。
“她就是沒(méi)有罪。依我看，這種情形可以引用第八百一十八條?！保ǖ诎税僖皇藯l規(guī)定：法庭如發(fā)現(xiàn)裁決不當(dāng)，可取消陪審員的決定。）
“您看怎么樣？”庭長(zhǎng)問(wèn)那個(gè)和善的法官。
和善的法官?zèng)]有立刻回答，卻看了看面前那份公文的號(hào)碼，算了算那個(gè)數(shù)目能不能被三除盡。他計(jì)算著，要是能除盡，他就同意。結(jié)果這個(gè)數(shù)目除不盡，但他這人心地善良，還是同意了庭長(zhǎng)的意見(jiàn)。
“我也認(rèn)為應(yīng)該這么辦，”他說(shuō)。
“那么您呢？”庭長(zhǎng)問(wèn)那個(gè)怒容滿面的法官。
“說(shuō)什么也不行，”他斬釘截鐵地回答?！艾F(xiàn)在報(bào)紙上已經(jīng)議論紛紛，說(shuō)陪審員總是替罪犯開(kāi)脫。要是法官也替罪犯開(kāi)脫，人家又會(huì)怎么說(shuō)呢？我說(shuō)什么也不同意?！?BR> 庭長(zhǎng)看了看表。
“很遺憾，可是有什么辦法呢！”他說(shuō)著把那份答案交給首席陪審員宣讀。
全體起立。首席陪審員掉換一只腳站著，咳清喉嚨，把問(wèn)題和答案宣讀了一遍。法庭上的官員，包括書(shū)記官、律師，甚至檢察官，個(gè)個(gè)露出驚訝的神色。
三個(gè)被告都若無(wú)其事地坐在那里，顯然并不了解這答案的利害關(guān)系。大家又坐下來(lái)。庭長(zhǎng)問(wèn)副檢察官，他認(rèn)為應(yīng)該判處那幾個(gè)被告什么刑罰。
這樣處理瑪絲洛娃使副檢察官感到意外的成功。他心里十分高興，并把這成功歸因于他出色的口才。他查了查法典，站起來(lái)說(shuō)：
“我認(rèn)為處分西蒙·卡爾津金應(yīng)根據(jù)第一千四百五十二條和第一千四百五十三條，處分葉菲米雅·包奇科娃應(yīng)根據(jù)第一千六百五十九條，處分葉卡吉琳娜·瑪絲洛娃應(yīng)根據(jù)第一千四百五十四條?！?BR> 這幾條都是法律所能判處的最重刑罰。
“審理暫停，法官商議判決，”庭長(zhǎng)一邊說(shuō)，一邊站起來(lái)。
大家都隨著他起立，帶著辦完一件好事的輕松心情紛紛走出法庭，或者在法庭里來(lái)回走動(dòng)。
“哦，老兄，我們做了一件錯(cuò)事，太丟人了，”彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇走到聶赫留朵夫跟前說(shuō)，這當(dāng)兒首席陪審員正在對(duì)聶赫留朵夫講話?！拔覀冞@是把她送去服苦役呀！”
“您說(shuō)什么？”聶赫留朵夫叫起來(lái)，這會(huì)兒他完全不計(jì)較這位教師不拘禮節(jié)的態(tài)度。
“可不是，”他說(shuō)?！拔覀?cè)诖鸢咐餂](méi)有注明：‘她有罪，但并非蓄意殺人。’剛才書(shū)記官告訴我：副檢察官判她服十五年苦役?！?BR> “我們不就是這樣裁定的嗎？”首席陪審員說(shuō)。
彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇爭(zhēng)議說(shuō)，既然她沒(méi)有偷錢，她當(dāng)然不可能蓄意殺人，這是理所當(dāng)然的。
“剛才離開(kāi)議事室以前我不是把答案念了一遍嗎？”首席陪審員辯白說(shuō)?！爱?dāng)時(shí)誰(shuí)也沒(méi)有反對(duì)?！?BR> “當(dāng)時(shí)我正好離開(kāi)議事室，”彼得·蓋拉西莫維奇說(shuō)?！澳趺匆矔?huì)沒(méi)注意？”
“我萬(wàn)萬(wàn)沒(méi)有想到，”聶赫留朵夫說(shuō)。
“哼，您沒(méi)有想到！”
“這事還可以補(bǔ)救，”聶赫留朵夫說(shuō)。
“唉，不行，現(xiàn)在全完了?！?BR> 聶赫留朵夫瞧了瞧那幾個(gè)被告。他們，這幾個(gè)命運(yùn)已定的人，仍舊呆呆地坐在欄桿和士兵中間?，斀z洛娃不知為什么在微笑。聶赫留朵夫的心靈里有一種卑劣的感情在蠢蠢活動(dòng)。他原以為她會(huì)無(wú)罪開(kāi)釋并將留在城里，因此感到忐忑不安，不知道該怎樣對(duì)待她才好。就他來(lái)說(shuō)，不論怎樣對(duì)待她都很為難。如今呢，服苦役，去西伯利亞，這樣就一筆勾銷了同她保持任何關(guān)系的可能：那只負(fù)傷而沒(méi)有死去的鳥(niǎo)就不會(huì)再在獵物袋里撲騰，也就不會(huì)使人想起它了。