At eleven o’clock, the Ariège Assize Court was called to order. Presiding Judge Regert refrained from ordering proceedings to be held in camera. He merely cautioned the public that the nature of the matter rendered the presence of children improper, inviting them to leave the courtroom. The Gazette des Tribunaux reports that a dense crowd was already pressing inside, eager to hear the story of two sisters, Maria and Isabelle Pujade, and of Anne Dejean, the widow Darnaud, arraigned for two pregnancies terminated within days of each other.
The indictment linked the three women within a single prosecution, yet the acts alleged against each were not identical. Maria Pujade, aged twenty-three, was said to have received aid in early June. Isabelle, her twenty-year-old sister, was alleged to have sought the same assistance in late May. At the hearing, the widow Darnaud denied having procured either abortion; as to Isabelle, she maintained she had merely been present during a natural miscarriage.
The prosecution’s narrative opened before a closed door. On 2 June, toward eight in the evening, an individual aware of Maria’s condition presented herself at the Pujade residence, only to be denied entry. Shortly thereafter, the widow Darnaud was admitted. This arrival aroused the suspicions of the first caller, who confided in a neighbor. On the following morning, a physician dispatched by the public prosecutor’s office found Maria bedridden. His examination concluded that a recent premature delivery had taken place; a search of the cellar revealed the remains that investigators linked to the event. The physician was of the opinion that a puncture had been performed.
Maria had at first spoken of a miscarriage. According to the indictment, she eventually acknowledged having sought to terminate her pregnancy, though without implicating Darnaud. She had reportedly maintained her silence pursuant to a promise not to denounce her. As the medical expert deemed it highly improbable that she could have performed such an act unaided, and as Isabelle’s initial admissions corroborated the findings, Maria offered an altered version of events.
Taking the stand, she conceded that her pregnancy had been known to her lover, an officer of the garrison. She testified that their intimacy had ceased on 28 April, after her aunt, alerted by Darnaud, discovered her in the room of the officer, who lodged with the widow. While staying there, Maria had received meals prepared by Darnaud; following the discovery, she had not returned. She declared that the officer had cautioned her against “doing anything foolish,” but denied that he had ever pressed her to rid herself of the child. She related that one Antoinette Cancel, in whom she had confided, had spoken of certain means and demanded money to divulge them. Cancel, called later as a witness, vigorously protested this allegation.
Maria ascribed all that followed to Darnaud. She stated that the widow had administered an infusion, and subsequently demonstrated another procedure. Following several unsuccessful and painful attempts, Maria said, Darnaud came to her dwelling on 1 June and performed the operation. Maria placed the expulsion on the following morning. She likewise explained why she had initially shielded the widow: the latter had pleaded not to be denounced and had concealed herself when the magistrates arrived. During her own interrogation, Darnaud admitted having initially denied her visit on the evening of 2 June, before conceding it once several witnesses testified to her presence. She explained she had feared a misinterpretation.
Darnaud’s defense countered this narrative with doubt, allegations of spite, and a different account of the scene. The widow acknowledged having known of the two young women’s condition, but denied having furnished the herb or performed any operation. She declared that the entire town was aware of their pregnancies. She dismissed Maria’s accusations as an act of vengeance, claiming she had been instrumental in ending the young woman’s liaison with the officer. Concerning Isabelle, she advanced an alternative version: she claimed to have merely witnessed a miscarriage, while the aunt, Cadette Pujade, had received the infant and resolved to bury it in a family vineyard.
Isabelle, for her part, corroborated the prosecution’s case. She testified to having tried an infusion of rue, and subsequently consented to Darnaud’s intervention on 26 May. She situated the expulsion on the following evening and affirmed that the widow had removed the contents of a chamber pot, subsequently fetching sheets and a chemise so that the family might detect nothing. Darnaud denied this, insisting Isabelle had suffered a natural miscarriage and that Cadette Pujade had taken the stillborn child to bury it among the vines.
Upon the witness stand, Cadette denied having attended the delivery. She acknowledged that Darnaud had called to her on 26 May. She had mounted halfway up the stairs; upon learning that Isabelle was unwell, she had answered: “If she is sick, let her get well.” She had then retired to bed, leaving Darnaud in her nieces’ room. She maintained she had seen nothing. Darnaud objected that Cadette had entered the chamber; under renewed questioning, Cadette clarified that she had reached the top of the stairs and seen Isabelle seated upon a chair. She denied having tended to her niece in the bedchamber and accused Darnaud of carrying the child away, saying that it was her affair. Darnaud retorted that both women had cared for the girl, and that Cadette had gone out to procure meat for a restorative broth. “That is false,” the aunt replied.
A juror inquired whether this purchase might be verified. Darnaud named the butcher, the widow Fournier, on Place Saint-Volusien; the presiding judge summoned her forthwith. Madame Fournier could not recall having sold meat to Cadette on the morning of 27 May, adding that she had never sold her eighteen sous’ worth: the aunt’s purchases never exceeded thirty or forty centimes.
The remaining witnesses did not resolve all uncertainties. The officer linked to Isabelle admitted having given her a small vial of absinthe, but disputed that he had presented it as a means of aborting a pregnancy. Maria’s lover confirmed knowing she was pregnant and having warned her, according to the report, not to do anything foolish; he could shed no light on the act in question. Antoinette Cancel denied ever counseling the young women or offering assistance.
The proceedings extended late into the evening. At five o’clock, Crown Prosecutor Salvagnac addressed the court. Holding all three women guilty, he urged the jury to deny the widow Darnaud the benefit of extenuating circumstances. Following his address, the sitting was suspended until eight o’clock; the crowd had grown so vast that an infantry detachment was required to hold back onlookers at the palace gates.
Maître Laborde addressed the court on behalf of the sisters. He did not dispute their admissions, but depicted them as victims of Darnaud. Maître Joffrès defended the widow; according to the press account, he underscored his client’s complete lack of interest in the affair and alleged deep resentment on the part of the two sisters. He maintained that the jury could not convict based upon the self-serving accusations of two co-defendants.
At midnight, the presiding judge delivered his summing-up. The jury retired at one in the morning and returned at half past two. The Gazette describes a room still crowded to capacity and a hushed silence as the foreman delivered the findings. The verdict was affirmative on all counts. All three defendants were granted extenuating circumstances. The court sentenced Maria and Isabelle Pujade to one year of imprisonment each, and the widow Darnaud to four years. The report notes that Darnaud lodged an appeal in cassation, though it does not record the ultimate disposition of the petition.