At eleven o’clock in the morning on July 11, 1875, the bailiff Viconte presented himself to conduct the sale of crops distrained upon the holding of Fauliot, a husbandman of Longchamps. The creditor, Féret, was likewise upon the land. According to the indictment read before the court of assize, Fauliot had previously threatened both men: he was resolved to keep his harvest and prevent the auction from being brought to its conclusion. As Féret passed within a few paces of him, the accused levelled a pistol hitherto concealed beneath his smock and fired. The creditor fell, struck full in the head. Fauliot then turned toward the bailiff: “Now for Viconte!” The second act of the threat was to unfold along the roadway.
The Gazette des Tribunaux reported the case from the sitting of August 3 before the Assize Court of the Eure. Fauliot was thirty-nine years of age; his hair was already entirely gray, his features marked by a harshness which the journal ascribed to an excess of self-assurance. He was clad in a blue blouse and bore, according to the report, the gait and demeanor of a rustic. M. Lelu appeared for the prosecution; Maître de Burey sat at the bar for the defense. The clerk proceeded to read the indictment, from which this account of the seizure, the auction, and the gunfire is derived.
The bill of indictment portrayed Fauliot as a negligent cultivator who had run into debt and failed, in particular, to pay his grocer, Féret. The latter had ultimately retained Viconte, a bailiff at Étrépagny, to execute process against his debtor; the standing crop was seized, and its sale duly posted. The report does not set forth the instruments of debt nor the precise legal proceedings. It records, however, that these measures had provoked bitter rancor in Fauliot, and that when the bailiff appeared on July 11, the farmer received him with foul abuse, even raising his hand against him. An altercation likewise broke out between the accused and Féret.
The sale was thus to bring the three men face to face over a harvest whose proceeds were destined for the discharge of a debt. In the prosecution’s version, Fauliot was not merely resisting the distress: he had resolved to avenge himself upon the two men who were carrying it into execution. Féret was walking peaceably a few paces away; the accused aimed at him with the pistol he had kept hidden beneath his smock and discharged a ball that struck him in the head. The Gazette records that he fell as though struck by lightning. Fauliot is then said to have uttered his threat against Viconte and reloaded the weapon, both barrels of which had been spent.
Forewarned, the bailiff fled in his carriage, which was obliged to take a circuitous course. Fauliot ran ahead to cut him off and levelled his weapon at him twice from a certain distance. The pistol misfired. In the judicial narrative, this failure divides the homicide from the second assault: one of the targeted men lay dead, while the other succeeded in quitting the scene. Fauliot was apprehended that afternoon, still carrying his weapon. The journal reports that he admitted having murdered Féret out of vengeance, while denying any design upon the life of Viconte. The preliminary investigation, the indictment added, had established that he had purchased the pistol the previous day with the intent of accomplishing this double crime.
At the hearing, the presiding judge examined him at length regarding his conduct and the weapon. Fauliot acknowledged that a double-barrelled gun, primed, and ammunition had been discovered in his chamber; he denied having threatened Féret or his wife and disputed the debt, declaring: “I owed nothing at all.” The president reminded him that he might have had recourse to the courts had he deemed the claim unjust, rather than rising up against the sale. The president further noted that Fauliot had initially denied purchasing the pistol, before claiming to have bought it from a gunsmith in Argueil, stating he believed the man might otherwise be compromised. When the vendor of the weapon was discovered, Fauliot was forced to admit the purchase. Questioned as to the date, he stated that his memory failed him. He answered that he had procured the pistol for convenience when visiting his parents. The president objected that the roads were safe and observed that he had selected an arm of superior quality despite its higher cost; Fauliot explained that he happened to be passing by and had purchased powder at the same time.
The prisoner once more denied having aimed at the bailiff. He maintained that the pistol was unloaded and explained that he had walked in Viconte’s direction only to reach his parents by way of the Mainneville road. The president’s questions, however, confronted him with the remarks several witnesses attributed to him: “Viconte shall not sell that parcel,” and “I will settle his hash.” Fauliot answered that he had spoken no such words. He admitted having reloaded the arm, but explained that his intention had been to turn it upon himself; asked why he had not done so, he replied: “You see… reflection took hold…” The threat of vengeance and the attempt upon the bailiff remained thus intertwined in the proceedings, though the accused vigorously contested the latter.
Dr. Bariod, summoned to describe the post-mortem examination of Féret, testified that the ball had entered through the nose and traversed the brain; it was recovered within the cranium. Death, he considered, must have been instantaneous. Viconte recounted that as he was driving away in his carriage, he saw Fauliot running toward him and taking aim. The prisoner answered that the pistol was not loaded; when the president inquired whether the witness was not speaking the truth, he persisted in his denial.
Further testimonies detailed the words and actions that had preceded and followed the sale. Giguel, a tiler at Longchamps, stated that Fauliot had told him a week beforehand that if the sale took place, Féret would touch no money. Fauliot explained that he had meant he would lodge a formal legal opposition to the sale. Barce reported words of a similar nature; Caloud had heard him warn Viconte that he would have his share and Fauliot would have his. The rural constable Legoix testified that the accused had threatened both the bailiff and Féret, and that he had subsequently seen him reload his pistol with a ramrod and fire upon Viconte, the shot having misfired. Bourguin stated that Fauliot had informed him he would deal with the bailiff as he had dealt with Féret. Louvet in turn recounted that after the shooting, Fauliot had said to him: “Yes, I killed Féret; I have one more to kill, and then myself.”
Fauliot continued to maintain that the witnesses had conspired together to invent his utterances against Viconte. Bertin and the two Levasseurs testified to having seen him, after Féret’s murder, pass near them, reload his weapon, and run after the bailiff’s carriage. The president rebuked them for failing to intervene; one replied that he had no desire to get himself killed. The report pauses briefly over this answer, which the president condemned with indignation. Caillouet, who was seated in the carriage, had not seen the shot; Barette, for his part, recounted finding Fauliot at the Delaunay inn after the crime and overpowering him with the innkeeper’s assistance by means of a halter.
M. Lelu called upon the jury to find premeditation, both as to the assassination of Féret and the attempt upon Viconte, arguing that no mitigating circumstances existed. Maître de Burey did not deny the commission of the deed, but disputed the severity of the penalty sought by the prosecution. He contended that mitigating circumstances had been sought everywhere save where they truly lay, submitting that Fauliot had, until that day, committed no act contrary to honesty. In his submission, the prisoner genuinely believed he did not owe the sum demanded, had been driven to desperation by seeing his crops sold off under ruinous conditions, had submitted to arrest without the slightest resistance, and had manifested his repentance from the very outset. This plea reflects the defense’s version; the journal does not record the entirety of the arguments nor all the documents examined.
The jury answered the questions in the affirmative, save for that of premeditation regarding the attempted assassination of Viconte; mitigating circumstances were admitted. The court sentenced Fauliot to hard labor for life. The distress sale had left two distinct outcomes in its wake: Féret had lost his life, while Viconte had escaped the blow. In the judgment recorded, the jury declined to find premeditation in the attempt upon the bailiff, but the penalty visited upon Fauliot answered for the homicide and the deeds of which he stood convicted.