Twibill / besaigue murder with civil war as the backdrop.

When a tailor's tool finds itself in a criminal case with civil war as the backdrop in the 19th century...

It happened in Clamecy in December 1851 following the coup d’état of Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte

Carpenter tool : Twibill or Besaigue which is more than a meter long

Let’s give a little background on the time before discussing this criminal case. On December 2, 1851, Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, then president of the second French Republic, launched a coup d’état. In fact, he dictated 6 decrees which will allow him to remain in power while the Constitution of the second republic prohibits him from running again at the end of his mandate. It ultimately establishes an authoritarian presidential regime. (We're talking about 1851, eh...)

The Republicans in the towns around Paris began resistance by taking up arms and marching towards the capitals.

This is what is happening in Clamecy, a small town in Nièvre, to which many revolutionaries from the surrounding countryside are heading.

This city was split into two camps which hated each other and raised fears of a civil war at the slightest excess.

There was the Republican Party, and the reactionary party which held the authority and favor of the rich bourgeoisie. The day after Napoleon's coup d'état, the public prosecutor "head of the party of order" in Clamecy decided to have the leaders of the Republican party arrested and incarcerated.

The rumor spread, and this was what triggered a real civil war which started in the city and which lasted until December 8, 1851. It was during this event that tragic murders were committed. A council of war took place over several days from the end of January 1852 to try the various murders and “insurrectionists” mentioned. I came across by chance the one responsible for the twibill.

Town Hall Square where the clashes began

The province in December 1851: historical study” by Eugène Tévot summarizes the facts as follows:

“The insurgents had become masters of Clamecy town hall. Surprised by their easy victory, they believed the majority of their adversaries to be in barracks, and did not yet dare to attack them there. Several of them left the city to activate the countryside movement. The others spread throughout the various neighborhoods, looking for weapons and ammunition. Around this time, a heinous crime was committed, the most inexplicable of those which bloodied Clamecy.

One of the most honorable citizens of this city, Mr. Mulon, lawyer, was returning home, arming a lady, Madame Courot. Mr. Mulon was a republican (the irony was that he was killed by republicans!) he had been commissioner of the provisional government; he was looked upon as a man of talent; he was generally well-liked and had no known personal enemies.

He was only a few steps from his door when a man broke away from a group of individuals whom the darkness prevented from recognizing. He approaches Mr. Mulon and sticks a carpenter's bevel behind his head.

Mr. Mulon lets out a cry, throws out a few words: “How cowardly it is to strike like this from behind!... Oh how you hurt me! » He staggers, he falls. A few minutes later he atone. »

The trial was unable to convict two suspects tried for his murder because no one was able to recognize who carried out the blow.

The two suspects were nevertheless convicted for their participation in the “insurrection” and were sent to deportation (Cayenne?)

A few years later here is what was said about this murder:

“However, it is said in Clamecy that an insurgent deported to Africa confessed on his deathbed to being the assassin. This wretch, according to some, would have struck Mr. Mulon because he was wearing a frock coat; others say that he thought he recognized a lawyer from the city, a hot reactionary, and had only hit Mr. Mulon by mistake; finally others claim that a private hatred pushed the assassin's arm. »

Monument to the dead erected 30 years later in Clamecy to commemorate the events of December 1851

For those who wish to read part of the trial, here are the details that have been selected:

“Second war council of the 19th military division sitting in Clamecy (Nièvre)

Presidency of M de Martimprey, colonel of the 65th line

January 31 hearing

[…]

Mr. Government Commissioner: allow me, gentlemen, to outline in a few strokes the deplorable events that horrified Clamecy. For a long time Clamecy had been infested with bad doctrines which tended to overthrow society. The neighborhood of Paris, Clamecy's frequent relations with the capital had been fatal for the latter locality.

[…]

The supporters of disorder maintained emissaries on the road to Paris to be informed of events. As soon as they believed they could count on the cooperation of the capital, the insurgents moved to the suburb of Bethlehem, their headquarters; from there they marched on the prison to deliver forty political prisoners; then they broke down the doors of the church, went up to the bell tower to sound the tocsin (The clapper of the bell had been removed; a man sounded the tocsin by knocking with a hammer!) and to fire on the town hall post, which they had planned to seize.

A discharge was made on the gendarmes who were on patrol and who came out onto the town hall square. Three gendarmes fall, one killed, the other mortally wounded, a third less dangerously.

The insurgents then attack the town hall. Among the troops near the gate is Meunier, a primary school teacher, who is fatally shot. His assassin is designated. You gentlemen will have to appreciate the circumstances which led to his discovery.

An honorable man from this town, Mr. Mulon, lawyer, was killed on the arm of a lady.

All the doors and that of the town hall having been forced, the insurgents took up residence in the town hall.

[…]

It was on the night of December 7-8 that the insurgents abandoned the city; Around midnight, all posts were evacuated. […]

Mr. President: Now bring in the accused Sabatier and Guilleminot.

The accused are introduced and placed between two riflemen; their defenders, Me Sonnié-Moret; lawyer, and Alapetête, lawyer, place themselves behind the dock.

Sabatier and Guilleminot are in blouses and in an outfit that announces distress.

After the witnesses are called, the reading of the exhibits begins. The accused appear to listen to him with the deepest attention. All these documents relate to the assassination of Mr. Mulon, lawyer.

Reading done, Sabatier is questioned.

Mr. President: Sabatier, stand up. You see this twibill (carpenter's tool) on this table: do you recognize it? Is this the one used in the crime?

Sabatier: I had a twibill like that; but it was of no use to the fact that I was being reproached. Mr. Mulon was already struck when I approached him; he was hit with a small instrument with his hand. I said to Mr. Mulon who was then behind the church (not far from the town hall): Don't worry, you probably won't get hurt; there is more fear than harm. Mr. Mulon was still walking, and when he lost his strength, I offered to carry him home. The accused then gives an insignificant story.

Mr. President: You have never said the same thing since you were first questioned. At this point, you indulge in verbiage that might make it seem like you want to distract from the main issue. Police, represent bisaiguë to the members of the council.

(This tool has very large proportions; it has a socket in which the handle is placed, one end is made like a small axe, the other end is pointed and beveled. The instrument is more than a meter long .)

Mr. President: There is still some blood on the small end.

Me Sonnié-Moret, defender of Sabatier: Sorry, there is no blood. Mr. d’Arcy, who made a report, declares that he did not notice any.

Mr. President: Mr. d’Arcy declares that he scraped off dust that looked like blood. Besides, Mr. d’Arcy will be heard. Accused Sabatier, you initially denied having been on Mr. Mulon’s path; now you say you saw him hit. It is surprising that you cannot say by whom it was made. Accused Guilleminot, do you recognize this ambiguity?

Guilleminot: Yes sir, it belongs to me; it was I who gave it to Sabatier.

Mr. President: Did he ask you to go with him? – R(respondent). : No, sir, he did not tell me to accompany him.

Mr. President: Who was with Sabatier? – A. I didn’t see anyone.

Mr. President: Let's see, you seem to have more frankness than Sabatier, that may be of some use to you with the council. – A. Sir, I do not deny that I found myself at the barricades, but I was dragged away by force.

Mr. Government Commissioner: Was it by force that you delivered this instrument?

Mr. President: No, he has already admitted it. We will hear the witnesses.

1st witness: Mme Courot, wife of Mr. Courot, notary. (This lady was on Mr. Mulon's arm when he was hit). The witness is dressed in black.

Mr. President: You were present when Mr. Mulon was hit – A; I was on Mr. Mulon's arm when we were surrounded by five or six men who pushed us; one of them gave Mr. Mulon a violent blow; At first I thought he had been punched. Mr. Mulon said, turning around: “How cowardly to hit a man from behind! how you hurt me! »

Mr. President: Sabatier, stand up; Madam, do you recognize this man? – A: Sir, I said the one who knocked was of average height, like this man. When he had given the blow, he withdrew and stood in line with the others to disguise himself.

[…]

9th witness – Mr. Heulhard d’Arcy, doctor in Clamecy: I was called to provide care to the unfortunate Mr. Mulon. I found the victim in a deplorable state. I still saw an arterion which flowed weakly in a sheet; I went home to get what I needed to bandage this wound; but on my return I only found a corpse. I was surprised at the shape of the wound: but having looked around me, I saw that I was presented with a bisacute; it was a streak of light for me. I brought the small end of the lips close to the wound, and saw that they fitted perfectly with the instrument; I lifted the wound, it was getting weaker; finally the wound was such that this instrument can do it. Mr. Mulon had a large amount of blood in his chest, and he died of hemorrhage.

Mr. President: Sabatier, do you have anything to offer, not only to this testimony, but to all the ones we have heard? – A. No, sir. I will only say that the injury may have been made by a donkey's beak (carpentry instrument).

Besides, I had given my bisaiguë to a man named Cazat, a mason, long before the murder was committed.

Mr. President: Can you identify the men who carried Mr. Mulon home? – A. If I knew them, I would not hesitate to say it, it would be a great service to me at this time.

Mr. President: And you, Guilleminot, what do you have to add? – A. I didn’t put it back on to hurt. If I had planned this, I would not have given it.

Mr. Government Commissioner persists in the accusation: The accused Sabatier only got rid of his weapon because he felt how much it compromised him. It is not well established that Guilleminot intended to arm an assassin by giving the weapon to Sabatier, but he knew well that he was arming an insurgent.

Mr. Puja de la Fitol concludes the application of articles 87 and 91 of the Penal Code to the two accused, as having taken part in an insurrection, and furthermore, because of the perpetration of the assassination of Mr. Mulon by Sabatier , it requires against the latter the application of arts. 296, 297, 302 and 304 of the penal code.

Mr. President: The floor is given to Sabatier's defender.

Me Sonnié-Moret argues in conclusion that there are only presumptions against his client, that no one saw him, recognized him among the individuals who surrounded Mr. Mulon. Sabatier is a former soldier, he is not capable, says the defender, of cowardly hitting a man from behind. The council will remember, when deliberating, that Sabatier is a family man and that only presumptions weigh on him (The accused sheds copious tears.)

Mr. Puja de la Fitol, Government Commissioner: The presumptions are so strong that for us, in this case, they are worth the most positive statements. Who could have used this weapon, if not Sabatier, who carried it, who abandoned it as soon as it could compromise him?

Sabatier takes refuge behind Cazot, to whom he claims to have handed over the bisaiguë; but Cazot is absent, he is on the run, and that is why the accused invokes this testimony.

Mr. President: Accused Sabatier, do you have anything to add? – A. No, sir, nothing.

Mr. President: Guilleminot's defender has the floor.

The defender and the public prosecutor having been heard, the present declares that the debates are closed, and the council retires to the room of its deliberations.

The accused are taken away. Sabatier is very pale, and seems deeply depressed.

The council returns to session at a quarter past six, and renders a judgment which sentences the two accused to deportation in a fortified enclosure.