The shop windows appeared replete. On the Rue Saint-Sauveur, the Rue Saint-Germain-l’Auxerrois, and later the Rue Sedaine, the storefronts of Antonio Malato offered suppliers the comforting spectacle of a thriving trade: sugarloaves, candles, tins of provisions, earthenware terrines, and casks arranged as the ordinary tokens of a prosperous grocery. Yet the bill of indictment read before the Seine Assize Court depicted a deceptive facade. The sugarloaves and candles on display were cast in plaster; the sealed tins contained nothing; the carefully lidded terrines were empty; and in a vast cask that seemed brimming with prunes, only a superficial crust sustained the illusion. Several commercial houses had thus granted deliveries on credit, believing they were provisioning a merchant, whilst the merchandise was immediately resold for cash and at a loss.
On 24 August 1874, four individuals stood before the Seine Court of Assizes: Antonio Malato, known as de Corneto; his wife, Marie-Louise Hanneguin; Emile Salomon; and Armand-Marie-Antoine Hanneguin. The judicial record places the hearing under the presidency of M. Thévenin. Advocate General Hémar occupied the seat of the public prosecutor; the defending counsel recorded were Maîtres Demange, Joumar, Strauss, and Pougy. The docket lists the third defendant as Emile Salomon, yet the indictment subsequently refers to “the Salomon girl,” his cashier, without resolving the contradiction. The clerk of the court, M. Blondeau, read the indictment detailing the chain of transactions alleged against the principal defendant and those whom the preliminary examination designated as his accomplices.
Malato had been born in Sicily in 1824. According to the indictment, he claimed to have practised the law there. In 1853, at Toul, he had wed Louise-Marie-Octavie Hanneguin. Following disastrous ventures in Meurthe-et-Moselle, he had arrived in Paris to trade in oranges and Italian commodities. A first bankruptcy had been declared in 1860, under circumstances the prosecution characterized as ruinous to his creditors. The same indictment evoked his political history: an agent d'affaires in the Panthéon quarter, he was said to have served as a captain in the ranks of the insurrection, before being visited with an expulsion order and sentenced in absentia to detention in a fortified place. He had evaded the execution of this sentence and lived under an assumed name.
In 1873, according to the prosecution’s narrative, Malato resumed commercial dealings in Paris. On 13 October, he became proprietor of a grocery at No. 30 Rue Saint-Sauveur. Shortly thereafter, he opened a second establishment at No. 73 Rue Saint-Germain-l’Auxerrois; on 29 December, he installed himself in a third shop at No. 39 Rue Sedaine. It was this proliferation of addresses, conjoined with the abundant outward aspect of the premises, that inspired confidence in wholesale houses delivering on term. The prosecution maintained that the visible goods were mere simulacra and that the consignments received were promptly liquidated, often at a loss, to convert the credit granted by suppliers into ready cash.
The indictment fixed the critical turn at the close of January 1874. It records that, on 25 January, Malato found himself unable to honour a draft drawn by the three Vallach brothers, his suppliers, and resolved thereupon to abscond. It adds, however, that the execution of this flight had been concerted as early as the 24th with his wife and the Salomon girl, his cashier—these two proximate dates being those provided in the record. On 28 January, the trio took lodgings under false names in a small apartment on the Rue Renouard. The indictment enumerates the aliases of Charles Antoine, Marie de Farge, wife of Antoine, and Annette de Farge, presented as the sister of the latter; these assumed identities blurred the connections between the three and their establishments.
Prior to their departure, property had been removed to safety. The indictment attributed to Malato, assisted by the Salomon girl and Armand Hanneguin, the concealment of a clock, candelabra, and other effects to which he attached particular value. Malato allegedly returned to his shops thereafter to empty the cashboxes. Armand Hanneguin, his kinsman, remained charged with the custody of the three premises. The prosecution accused him of having liquidated a quantity of goods and remitted the proceeds to the principal defendant, in accordance with covenants prearranged; it added that he had also diverted sacks of semolina and lentils. The Crown’s case dwelt upon the creditors who presented themselves for payment: Hanneguin, it contended, was well aware that he was forbidden from disbursing any portion of the funds.
The bankruptcy of Malato was pronounced on 13 February by the Tribunal of Commerce of the Seine. The deficit, arduous to determine by reason of the inadequacy of the books, was estimated at approximately 56,000 francs. The indictment distinguished the losses arising from ruinous transactions from those it attributed to outright embezzlements, assessed by an expert at not less than 13,000 francs. These figures measured distinct realities: the former corresponded to the gross deficit recorded, the latter to the minimum portion imputed to fraudulent maneuvers. The Salomon girl was apprehended while en route to consult a lawyer. She bore 300 francs concealed beneath her garments and against her bosom; almost forthwith, she made confessions that, according to the prosecution, gravely compromised her co-defendants.
The investigation thereafter traced several lodgings and hidden hoards. The Malato spouses had removed themselves following the arrest of the cashier, taking refuge under the name of M. and Mme Detroyes at No. 4 Rue Debrousse. Marie-Louise Hanneguin was arrested there on 15 February. The search yielded 400 francs, two promissory notes signed by one Colas, and furnishings that the examining magistrate connected to the diversions of January. On 19 February, a sum of 5,000 francs was discovered concealed in a jar of rice powder. An authorized visit to the domicile on 26 February brought to light a further 4,000 francs in banknotes sewn into the lining of a gown. These discoveries charted an itinerary of hiding places, though their presence was not sufficient, in itself, to delineate the culpability of each party: that was the very crux of the accusation and the debates.
Malato was not arrested until 19 March, at Levallois-Perret. Following a brief stay in Belgium, he had returned to Paris at the end of his resources, and was said to have attempted to gain entry to his lodgings to retrieve the 5,000 francs he believed safe from discovery. Before the court, he acknowledged having failed in business in 1860 and having been condemned in contumacy for his participation in the insurrection of the Commune. He denied, however, ever having been an advocate in Sicily. He explained that he had hidden himself and subsequently fled France because he knew he was sought on that account, and he defended himself with vigour against the accusations in the docket.
The remaining defendants likewise protested their innocence. They contended that their conduct had been governed by the plight of Malato, pursued and subjected since 1872 to an expulsion decree; they pleaded their good faith. The dispatch notes the deposition of Police Commissioner Bérillon and of other witnesses summoned by both the prosecution and the defence, without detailing their words in full. Advocate General Hémar concluded by demanding the conviction of all four defendants, declining to address the question of extenuating circumstances for any among them. Maître Pougy delivered the defence of Armand Hanneguin, praying for his acquittal. At five minutes to six, the hearing was adjourned to the following day to hear the counsel for the remaining accused. The Gazette halts at this threshold: it preserves an indictment, the explanations, and the Crown’s summing up, but not the verdict that ensued.