+ ~ -
Please report pronunciation problems here. Select and sample other voices. Options Pause Play
Report an Error

and was in December sentenced to six months'
imprisonment and hard labour, which expired on the
26th of May, 1852; and on the 16th of August, 1852, he
lived at No. 67, Tower-street, Westminster-road, and
wanted to know the prices of tool chests and garden-

An action tried in the Court of Excheqxier, on the
21st inst., Debacker v. Bellevue, arose out of singular
circumstances. Both the plaintiff and defendant were
Frenchmen, and the action was brought for a sum of
£23 odd, consisting of £12 or £13 money lent; £5 10s.,
the price of a cloak or "talma;" 15s., the price of some
pocket-handkerchiefs; £1 1s., the price of a hat: and
some other itemsalleged to be due by the defendant.
The plaintiff it appears had the defendant arrested on
the 18th of December, on the plea that he was about to
leave the country. The defendant was liberated from
prison by a judge's order on the 24th, but in the meantime
he found that a lady who had lived with him for
six years, and by whom he had two children, had, with
the children, left his house and gone to reside elsewhere.
The only witness of importance were the plaintiff and
defendant themselves. The plaintiff, who is a tailor,
residing in Regent-street, having proved the particulars
of his demand, said that he had the defendant arrested
because he had heard that he was going to leave the
country. On cross-examination he admitted that he
visited Madame Bellevue three or four times a week
since she left the plaintiff, and that he had been at her
new place of abode last night, but denied any criminal
intercourse with her. He was a married man, but his
wife resided in France for the last 14 or 15 months. It
was pleaded for the defendant, that the greater part of
this £23 was a fictitious demand, got up to enable the
plaintiff to arrest and imprison the defendant, that he
might the more easily accomplish the seduction of the
lady, who was living with the defendant as his wife
whilst he was in prison. Madame Bellevue was, it
seemed, highly descended, and not without accomplishments,
and it was to remove her from the defendant, by
whom she had two children, that Debacker had concocted
this claim of £23. The defendant gave the following
evidence, his excited manner producing a considerable
sensation in the court;—"I have known the plaintiff since
June last. I was introduced to him by a friend from
Paris, named Maubert. I am a literary man, and was
a member of the Society of Dramatic Authors. I lived
with the lady for six years, and had two charming
children by her. Maubert lived in Debacker's house,
and when I visited Maubert he saw the lady there. I
recollect the 14th of November. The plaintiff brought
down a "talma" from his "magasin," and said, here is
a cloak which my workmen have spoiled by putting the
back of it in the front. He put it on the lady. I looked
surprised. The plaintiff then said that if the lady would
accept of it, he should feel very happy. The lady said,
"Oh! no, sir." He then put the "talma" on the back
of a chair. About a week after I went again to the
plaintiff's, who said that he had got the cloak settled,
and wished to give it to the lady. I said to "ma femme,''
"It seems to please you my dear, and I will take it and
pay for it when I have the money." The plaintiff
seemed satisfied. Nothing was said about the price.
It was not worth more than 30s. I recollect something
about a hat. Here is the article. (The witness in an
excited manner handed it to the jury, saying, "Sixpence!
sixpence only!") My own hat was crushed coming out
of the cabin of one of the penny steamers. I said to the
plaintiff it is unpleasant that my hat should be in this
condition. I have no money at present to buy one.
The plaintiff said he had some hats upstairs and he
brought down two old ones. He gave me one which I
wore for six weeks. I then bought a new one, and the
hatter allowed me sixpence for the one Debacker gave
me. I recollect the plaintiff bringing 12 pocket-
handkerchiefs to my "femme," who embroiders like an angel.
He asked her to embroider half a dozen, and to put his
initials on them, and only to hem the other six. When
they were finished, Debacker said to the lady, "I will
not offer you money, but I pray you to retain the six
unembroidered handkerchiefs for your trouble." I saw
no objection to that, because I thought her labour was
worth more. I received a bill from Paris for £15 19s. 7d.;
it was payable at three days' sight on the 1st of
November, at the banking-house of Messrs. Monteaux and
Co. I received the bill on the 12th of October, and on
the 18th I gave it to Debacker, with my name endorsed
upon it. I gave it to him to get cashed, because he said
he was going every day to the City. I saw him the day
on which the bill was paid. He said he had not received
the amount, but he offered to advance me money on it.
The bill was paid, as I afterwards knew, on the 1st of
November. He advanced me the money in small
amounts, on several occasions. He paid me £3 14s.
beyond the amount of the bill. That is all the money
he advanced to me. I was arrested on the 18th of
December, in Rathbone-place, about 7 o'clock in the
evening. It was on a Saturday. I was taken to prison
after violence had been used towards me, at the
prompting of the plaintiff, who was by. I left prison
on Christmas-eve, and found my wife and children gone.
I was not guilty of any violence towards her. I have
had "scenes de jalousie " with her three or four times
about the plaintiff. I could not use violence towards
her, for I adored her as a saint.—On his cross
examination the defendant said;—”I have been a married man.
I separated from my first wife in 1846. I lived with
her in a fraternal way. I married her in 1838. I had
not lived with her for a long time before I left France.
She never had any children. I met the present young
lady at the house of her relativesit was not with the
consent of her parents that she first lived with me. She
was then 23 years of age. Eighteen months after I was
reconciled with her parents. I was then 41 years. Her
parents were very honourable people. She lived with
me since that period up to the 18th December, and she
was the most admirable of women. Her father was a
public functionary. It was a perpetual honeymoon
between us till I met the plaintiff. I never threatened her
with violence if she left me to return to her parents.
On the contrary, she followed me from France when I
was proscribed by Napoleon, the tyrant of France.
Baron Platt, in summing up took notice of the
circumstance that the plaintiff had the defendant arrested
late on Saturday night, when he could not probably
take any steps towards his liberation, till the following
Monday. And when, after six days of imprisonment,
he came to his home, he found that his doors were sealed
up, his wife and children gone and living at a place
where the plaintiff admitted that he visited four or five
times a week. It was also very strange that the plaintiff
had not said one word about the bill for £15. These
points struck the jury perhaps as they struck him, but
as he said the evidence was conflicting, and it was for
them to decide. The jury at once found a verdict for
the defendant. The JudgeThen I suppose, gentlemen,
you consider that the "talma" was a present. The Jury
Just so. The JudgeFor value received, I suppose.

A great sensation has been excited by the discovery of
Extensive Forgeries committed by a merchant in the city
of much apparent respectability. Mr. R. F. Pries is a
native of Germany, about thirty-five years of age, and
had numerous transactions with many of the first
houses on the continent. He is said to have derived an
income of £2,000 yearly from the agency of two firms in
Paris. His offices were in Crosby-hall chambers, and
his private residence at Grove-place, Brixton. Since
his establishment in London he married an English
lady, by whom he has two children. His transactions
were chiefly in corn, and his account at Sapte and Co.'s,
Lombard-street, bankers, show that since the 1st of
January of the present year he had issued cheques to
the amount of £66,974. Of late some dealings in corn in
which he acted excited a good deal of observation in
Mark-lane. He commenced a series of shipments of
grain from Hamburgh and other places on the continent
to England, and disposed of them at rates from 1s. to
2s. per quarter less than the current price of the
Exchange. During the extraordinary operations Mr.
Pries obtained large advances from foreign bankers in
the city, upon several consignments of corn, averaging
from £10,000 to £20,000. The obligations were often
renewed, the security in all cases being the warrant
documents, bills of lading, &c., presumed of course to
be genuine. These transactions went on up to the last
week of his continuing business, when some suspicion