The fourth question, relating to Bochkova, was answered “Guilty,” but at the insistence of the laborer, she was recommended to the mercy of the court.

The third question called forth fierce argument.  The foreman insisted that she was guilty of both the poisoning and robbery; the merchant, colonel, clerk and laborer opposed this view, while the others hesitated, but the opinion of the foreman began to predominate, principally because the jury were tired out, and they willingly joined the side which promised to prevail the sooner, and consequently release them quicker.

From all that occurred at the trial and his knowledge of Maslova, Nekhludoff was convinced that she was innocent, and at first was confident that the other jurors would so find her, but when he saw that because of the merchant’s bungling defense of Maslova, evidently prompted by his undisguised liking for her, and the foreman’s resistance which it caused, but chiefly because of the weariness of the jury, there was likely to be a verdict of guilty, he wished to make objection, but feared to speak in her favor lest his relations toward her should be disclosed.  At the same time he felt that he could not let things go on without making his objections.  He blushed and grew pale in turn, and was about to speak, when Peter Gerasimovich, heretofore silent, evidently exasperated by the authoritative manner of the foreman, suddenly began to make the very objections Nekhludoff intended to make.

“Permit me to say a few words,” he began.  “You say that she stole the money because she had the key; but the servants could have opened the trunk with a false key after she was gone.”

“Of course, of course,” the merchant came to his support.

“She could not have taken the money because she would have nowhere to hide it.”

“That is what I said,” the merchant encouraged him.

“It is more likely that her coming to the hotel for the money suggested to the servants the idea of stealing it; that they stole it and then threw it all upon her.”

Peter Gerasimovich spoke provokingly, which communicated itself to the foreman.  As a result the latter began to defend his position more persistently.  But Peter Gerasimovich spoke so convincingly that he won over the majority, and it was finally decided that she was not guilty of the theft.  When, however, they began to discuss the part she had taken in the poisoning, her warm supporter, the merchant, argued that this charge must also be dismissed, as she had no motive for poisoning him.  The foreman insisted that she could not be declared innocent on that charge, because she herself confessed to giving him the powder.

“But she thought that it was opium,” said the merchant.

“She could have killed him even with the opium,” retorted the colonel, who liked to make digressions, and he began to relate the case of his brother-in-law’s wife, who had been poisoned by opium and would have died had not antidotes promptly been administered by a physician who happened to be in the neighborhood.  The colonel spoke so impressively and with such self-confidence and dignity that no one dared to interrupt him.  Only the clerk, infected by the example set by the colonel, thought of telling a story of his own.