On the evening of 5 September 1873, towards ten o’clock, in the Rue Labirat, the light from a shop window caught the eye of Lobis as he was returning home. Dagron’s watchmaking establishment, standing at the corner of Rue Sainte-Catherine, was open and brightly lit. Dagron had taken the lease a mere fortnight before; he had only just completed his repairs and laid out the stock purchased with his lifetime of savings. In the back shop, a man was leaning over the showcase. A second seized Lobis; against his throat, he felt the chill of cold iron.
The two strangers thrust him aside and fled down Rue Labirat. Lobis gave chase, raising the cry of “Stop thief!”; several passers-by joined in the pursuit. Talaison and Hinkler had already laid hands upon the fugitives when the latter wheeled about and fired their revolvers. Compelled by the shots, their captors let go their hold. Two police constables, Bouquinet and Caubin, came running from Rue Sainte-Eulalie. One of the malefactors grappled with Bouquinet; the other held Caubin and Marcelin Crépin at gunpoint. Twice he shouted: “Fuego!” Two detonations rang out in rapid succession. The fugitives gained the Cours d’Albret and vanished into the night. No one was struck.
Inside the shop, it was found that the outer door had been forced with skeleton keys, and that of the back parlour prised open by means of an iron crowbar, which lay abandoned upon the premises. Watches, chains, lockets, rings, and sundry jewels had been swept from the display. The Gazette estimated the theft at over four thousand francs, dwelling upon the precarious situation of Dagron: his business had scarcely begun, and this ruinous loss swept away the very savings invested in his premises. At the assizes, his testimony made a deep impression upon the courtroom, though the printed report does not record his exact words.
The pursuers had noted a Spanish accent and the cry uttered during the flight. The police gathered intelligence until, on 19 September, the central police superintendent had a house cordoned off in the Cité des Noyers, occupied by Caroline Fernandez, known as the wife Ortega. Three men and two women were discovered therein. Bouquinet immediately recognised one of his assailants: Moro, alias Marcelin Del Agua. Searching the house, the officers uncovered jewels, housebreaking implements, and loaded firearms. Del Agua carried a Catalan clasp-knife; Fernandez concealed another beneath her garments, alongside a pistol and a revolver. On the morrow, Caubin likewise identified Del Agua; the descriptions recorded after the hue and cry, so the indictment affirmed, answered to him in every particular.
Subjected to interrogation, Del Agua could not deny his presence at the scene, yet cast the chief burden of guilt upon Jean-Dominique Secula. The Italian, he claimed, had effected the break-in, seized and retained the jewels, and discharged the firearms; he himself had merely stood sentinel. The indictment met this defence with the actions related by the witnesses, ascribing the assault on Lobis to Del Agua, and the sacking of the showcase to Secula. Nozer and Talaison described the attire worn by the two men: one wore a smock-frock, the other an overcoat. Del Agua conceded that Secula wore the smock; Nozer stated he had seen the latter discharge his weapon, whereas Talaison maintained he had faced the fire of the man with the pistol. The newspaper faithfully preserved these discrepancies in the depositions.
Constable Bouquinet testified that he saw Del Agua draw his revolver and thrust it into his opponent’s face; the latter had escaped only by knocking the barrel aside. Crépin swore that, by the flash of powder, he saw the shot had not been fired into the air; Winkler gave identical evidence. The accused, on the contrary, insisted they had discharged their pieces into the sky. Thus, in this bloodless pursuit, there arose a decisive question for the assize court: had the weapons been used merely to intimidate their pursuers, as the defence maintained, or to hit them, as the witnesses and the prosecution contended?
Another pursuer, the dramatic actor Winkler, recounted that he had been passing by chance through this street, which was unfamiliar to him. Hearing the cry of “thief,” he had joined the chase. He laid hold of Del Agua, who turned upon him and, at a signal given in Italian by Nélasko, fired directly at him. Winkler ducked his head sharply to the right; the ball lodged in the wall against which Del Agua had pinned him. Officers Caubin and Bouquinet then attempted to bar the fugitives’ path, and the struggle began anew. From the bench, President Habasque commended their fortitude. Winkler replied that he had done no more than his duty, adding that had he been armed, he would have slain Del Agua like a wild beast. The magistrate observed that he would have acted in legitimate self-defence. This exchange, reported in the Gazette, conveyed the measure of violence under judicial scrutiny, though it altered not the fact that no man had been wounded.
Secula was apprehended at Le Mans after what the press described as desperate resistance. Giving his true name as Nélasko, he initially denied the facts, but when confronted with Del Agua and identified by Bouquinet and Caubin, he ultimately confessed his participation. He protested, however, that he had never intended to kill, having fired into the air solely to frighten off his pursuers. Caubin testified that he had felt the scorching heat of the discharge; Winkler’s testimony was likewise brought against this defence. The Gazette reported that over 150,000 francs were seized at the time of Nélasko’s arrest. Angela Boris, his companion, was also taken into custody; two pairs of earrings found upon her person were identified by Dagron. The journal further mentioned 200,000 francs in railway and industrial shares, as well as weapons and housebreaking tools discovered at their domicile, without establishing that these sums arose from the watchmaker’s shop.
The searches brought to light other stolen goods, not all pertaining to the Dagron affair. Two days after the raid upon Fernandez, the police searched the lodgings of the Martinez couple in Rue des Pommiers. Eight bundles were found, containing silk handkerchiefs, shawls, and lengths of cloth. The draper Peigne identified among them forty-eight handkerchiefs, three shawls, and several fabrics stolen from his shop during the night of 10 to 11 July 1873. Six additional handkerchiefs from Peigne’s stock were recovered from Fernandez and from Dolivera. The women cast the blame upon one another or upon an unknown Spanish trader. These earlier burglaries bolstered the charge of receiving stolen goods, though they remained distinct from the breaking and entering at Dagron’s.
The newspaper listed seven accused, presenting several men and women as resetters. It depicted the Fernandez residence as a customary den of thieves and an armoury of sorts, recalling the previous convictions that Nélasko had allegedly admitted. The opening report also mentioned other offences attributed to him in Nantes and Le Mans, for which he was to answer before another assize court. These matters were not tried at Bordeaux. Here, Advocate-General Peyrecave demanded the death penalty against Nélasko and Del Agua. Counsel spoke in defence of the prisoners, but the journal did not summarise their speeches.
After two hours of deliberation, the jury acquitted all those charged with receiving. Nélasko and Del Agua were granted the benefit of extenuating circumstances and sentenced to penal servitude for life. Dagron’s shop had been ransacked in a matter of minutes; at the assizes, numerous witnesses reconstructed the pursuit and the gunfire, while the debates sought to apportion individual responsibility. The verdict affirmed the guilt of the two principals and set the remaining prisoners at liberty.
Archival Note: Gazette des Tribunaux, 4 April 1874, p. 327, Gironde Assize Court, sitting of 24 March. The report summarises the indictment, records witness depositions, and delivers the verdict; it does not reproduce counsel’s speeches. It exhibits orthographical variants in certain proper names (Nélasco/Nélasko, Winckler/Winkler) and mentions other robberies alongside separate criminal proceedings.