The jury probably saw this, concluded that the case was one of morphine poisoning, and reflected their judgment on this point back to the earlier cases. Then if the three cases were cases of morphine poisoning, were they felonious? and was Madame Joniaux the felon? The first branch of this question admits of an immediate affirmative answer. There was really no serious sug gestion of accident or suicide. The latter part of the question is not so easily an swered. But assuming the original infer ence as to the cause of death to have been justifiable — a point on which we are by no means clear, we think that Madame Joni aux was rightly convicted. We start with the fact that all three victims died in her house, and that she was interested in the death of all three, and was in serious pecu niary embarrassment at the time of their
deaths. Then there was evidence to show that she was in possession of morphine, and nothing to prove that she used it for any innocent purpose. Opportunities of admin istration she of course possessed abundantly in each case. Highly circumstantial all this evidence of course was, but we regard it as sufficient. Madame Joniaux's examination by the presiding judge excelled in point of unfairness. the average of continental crim inal inquisitions. The blinds of the court are said to have been adjusted, so that the play of her features could be watched, and every scrap of ignorant and irrelevant pre judice on which the prosecution could lay its hand was pressed into the case against her. But once convicted, she deserved exe cution. It is ludicrous to keep up the form of capital punishment, if criminals of such deep dye are not to suffer it. LEX.
THE JUDGES' C< )LLARS OF S S. THE Collar of S S, worn by the Chief Justice and Chief Baron of Her Ma jesty's Courts, has been the subject of conjec ture and suggestion. The collar is a very ancient ornament, for it is recorded that Titus Manlius, having slain a Gaul in com bat, put the torque or twisted chain or collar of his opponent on his own neck, and that he thence derived the sobriquet of Torquatus (B. c. 361). John of Gaunt, Duke of Lan caster, the uncle of Richard the Second, is said to have been the first person who used the Collar of S S as a badge, that king giving to his retainers symbols of this kind as party emblems, and such being worn by those who supported the pretensions of the Lancaster family to the throne. Hence, one suggested origin of the S S collar is that it means Seneschallar or Steward, an office which John of Gaunt inherited in right of his wife, the daughter of Henry of Lancaster. It continued the symbol of the Lancastrian ad-
herents through the reign of Henry the Fourth, Henry the Seventh, and Henry the Eighth, when in that king's reign an act passed limiting its use to certain persons. The Yorkist Collar was that of the Roses and Suns. The collar of S S is part of the Order of the Garter, and hence some trace it to the institution of that Order, the letters S S being the initials of the Coun tess of Salisbury, whose name is identified with the Order. It was certainly added to the insignia of that Order after the reign of Edward the Fourth, and so another suggestion of the origin of the letters is Souverayne, the motto of Henry the Fourth, in reference to his claim to the Crown. Again, it is said the letters mean nothing but the Gnostic Sigil or symbol. Another writer argues that they stand for Soissons, and that they were adopted by Henry the Fifth in honor of St. Crispin and St. Crispinian, martyrs of Soissons, on whose
