“No, immediate. But naturally it was revocable in case of divorce, and the husband retained control of it. The arrangement was for a separate maintenance account. Nevertheless, Mrs. Frasne, ignorant of the law, might have supposed that this money was actually hers, and that in leaving her husband’s household she had the right to take it away with her. It was an absurd way of looking at it, but for that very reason just the way a woman would have worked it out: in this way I explain to myself why the thief took particular pains to appropriate only one hundred thousand francs out of an envelope enclosing a deposit of one hundred and twenty thousand. That was not theft, it was reimbursement. Mrs. Frasne believed she was availing herself of her just rights.” “Yes,” concluded Mr. Roquevillard, interested in so solid an argument, “the contract explains all.” “And it is acquittal, certain and incontestable,” declared Mr. Battard, growing animated, and beginning to wave his long arms. “What jury would hold out against such a demonstration? I’ve very rarely held so many trump cards in my hand.” “You don’t always defend the innocent,” insinuated the president. “Innocent or guilty, it’s the proof which counts. Here we have it.” The father of the accused, who wanted a complete rehabilitation, next took up the subject. “The discovery of the contract is indeed a good point for the defence. Your eloquence, Battard, will make the best use of it, and we can count on ultimate success. But there is one thing I must ask you at once to bring out in your argument. Maurice did not go away with Mrs. Frasne without resources of his own. He had more than five thousand francs with him, borrowed for the most part from his two sisters, his great-uncle Stephen and his aunt Camille Roquevillard, who will testify to it if necessary. In the village of Orta, where they stayed, he received, further, a cheque for eight thousand francs remitted by the Society of Credit, from the Chambéry branch, who will produce the cancelled voucher for us. These explanations are indispensable from two points of view. In the first place, they anticipate a possible new accusation, which the plaintiff, abandoning Article 408 on the abuse of confidence, may base on Article 380 _in fine_. Theft between married persons doesn’t come within the scope of the law, that’s understood; but the penal code adds: ‘With respect to all other individuals who shall have received or applied to their own use all or any part of the things stolen, they shall be punished as if guilty of theft.’ There must be nothing equivocal on this head. And this paragraph will not apply at all if my son is cleared from all suspicion of having lived with this woman at her expense. I hold this absolutely essential to the preservation of his honour.” “Very good,” approved Mr. Hamel. “Very good,” repeated Mr. Battard indifferently.