THE VENICE DRAMA.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXII, Issue 9008, 22 November 1907, Page 1

THE VENICE DRAMA.

COUNTESS’ PERFIDY. Elsie Perrier, Countess Tarnowska’s maid, lias thrown light on the Venice murder drama in her police examination. The .substance of her statement is as follows: — The countess originated the plot for the murder of Count Komarowski, to whom she was engaged. Her lover, the lawyer Prilukoff, at first opposed it, but gradually yielded. She said that all they had to do was to inform the Russian Revolutionary Committee, who had “sentenced” the count to death, that ho was in Venice. Documents indicate that Prilukoff tried to got into touch with the revolutionaries in Zurich, but without success. The countess impatiently urged that she must yield to the count’s desire to marry her unless Prilukoff succeeded in removing him. At this stage she remembered that her young adorer Naum off had written in revolutionary newspapers, but Naum oft' refused to countenance a revolutionary murder. With the., help of tho maid, forged letters were then scut to raise his jealousy of Komarowski to fever heat. The countess knew that Komarowski had made a will leaving all his unentailed property to her, but Prilukoff learned that this was a small amount, and she agreed that the murder was not wortn committing unless the count’s child could also bo removed. A double murder, however, seemed too dangerous, and then Prilukoff suggested that Komarowski should insure his life in tho countess’ favour for £30,000. This was done. Naumolf by now had been so inflamed by the countess that ho promised her to shoot the count. When arrested in Venice he failed to carry out her suggestion, and to confess that it was a political crimp. Sho had said that for such a crime the sentence would be trifling, and after he came out she'would marry him. Instcadffio informed the police that jealousy was the motive, aud as bo had said that ho had left his fiancee in Vienna, Jho arrests there of tho countess aud Prilukoff followed. The latter’s attempt to corroborate the revolutionary nature of the tragedy by sending an anonymous warning to the Venice police, and by the use of the two police do tectiyos engaged to “protect” tho count, completely failed. One of tho curious aspects of the story is that Prilukoff, who had beeu given £IOOO by the countess for his expenses in Venice in covering their tracks aud lending countenance to the fiction of a revolutionary crime, appears to have gathered tho suspicion that the countess, after the murder, would drop him altogether. He wrote to her to this effect, aud thereareued if sho did so to disclose I all to the police. She answered, “Do what you will. I lovo you only.” , Russia demands the extradition of i Prilukoff for embezzlement in i Moscow, but has given no indication j in the case of tho countess.