The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1861-01-29 00:00:00

CHARGE OF EXIBEZZLEINIENt

William Thos. Cowlrick, a respectable-looking person,
was charged with having embezzled about £2OO belong-
ing to his employers, Messrs. Pim and Co., otherwise
Messrs. Williamson and Watson, wine and spirit mer-
chants. Mr. Cobb appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. Bluck for the prisoner. Mr. Cobb opened the case,
and called the following witnesses to prove it :—Police-
officer 582 said : I took the prisoner into custody, and'
told him that I was taking him for embezzling over
£2OO, when he said, " I will not say anything about it
at present." Mr. James Balderson, publican, of 141,
London-road, said : In April last I was indebted to
Messrs. Pim and Co. in the sum of £9. I paid the
prisoner, and got his receipt for it. (Receipt produced.)
Mr. David Buchanan, publican, corner of Comas-street,
proved having paid the prisoner £1 7s in June last, as
he was indebted to Pim and Co. in that sum. Mr.
William Little, examined, said : The parties composing
the firm of '• Pim and Co." are Jonathan Williamson
and William Watson. I am cashier in the house.
The prisoner was town traveller and solicitor for
orders. His duty was to receive orders, collect
money, and hand it over to me. He did not pay the
sums stated to me. I never received such sums from
him. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Muck,
and he stated that the prisoner was five or six years in
the employment, but the defalcations were not found out
until recently. He left in June. He said the amount
missed at present was over £lOO. Mr. Gluck endeavoured
to show that the prosecutors bad sent the prisoner to
London in June last, to a house in which they had an
interest, and that he remained there since. He com-
plained that neither Mr. Williamson nor Mr. Watson
had come forward, for he could elicit such facts,from
them, on cross-examination, as would induce the magis-
trate to discharge the prisoner. Mr. Raffles said the
case, as before him at present, was one of embezzlement,
and he must remand the prisoner on that charge; but
he would take two sureties in £5O each for his appear-
ance. The prisoner was then remanded.

"YOU ARE ANOTHER!
James Taylor, a celebrated" ESCAPED A.
who
G A
hI
aN.
d
been
before the court on three or four occasions during the
suspected bur-
glary, but who managed to get off each time, was
last month, on charges of burglary and
rs M'Carter and
brought up yesterday, by detective officers
appeared for him. M'Carter said at a quarter
Rigby, as a suspicious person. Mr. Bluck (as usual)six
past
on Sunday evening I saw the prisoner, and his pal,
John Berry, at the corner of Wellington-road, and
asked what they were doing there ? when I saw the
prisoner slip this jemmy towards Berry, and I then
seized his hand and got it. Inspector Carlisle said no
doubt the prisoner was there watching when the people
would go to church, and then break into and rob houses.
Mr. Bluck said he bad no doubt but Mr. Carlisle was
very well acquainted with all the thieves in England,
but-- Inspector Carlisle said Mr. Bluck knew a trifle
about them too. (Laughter.) Mr. Raffles said no
doubt the prisoner was a most dangerous fellow, but
the evidence not being sufficient he would discharge
jhim. He thought, however, that the police were quite
ustified in arresting such a daring character.
(Before Messrs. COUBiLLY, BENN, and CROPPER.)
SEAMAN'S WAGES.
Robert Crowthers, a sailor, sxmmoned Captain Porter,
of the ship Mayold, for a month's wages, under the fol-
lowing circumstances. Mr. Bluck appeared for the
complainant,- and Mr. Cobb for the defendant. The
case arose in this way. The claimant shipped as boat-
swain in the ship, and signed articles on the 18th, to be
on board at twelve o'clock on the 19th. He went down
to the pier-head on the 19th at half-past eleven, and
called a boat to take him to tle ship, when he was met
by the defendant, who told him to go away as he had
shipped a man in his place, and he would not take him.
He had his clothes with him at the time, and was all
ready to go on board. Mr. Cobb contended that the
claimant should have been on board at twelve on the
18th, but on the production of the ship's articles it
appeared that twelve on the 19th was the time signed
for. Mr. Bluck said if the man had not been on board
he would be subject to imprisonment. Mr. Cobb said
he feared his client was out of court, but he trusted
only a small sum would be given to the man as ho could
get another ship. The magistrates were of opinion that
the man was entitled to a month's wages, and made an
order for that amount.

ARMSTRONG GUNS.—Orders have been issued to sup-
ply every large class ship in the navy with three Arm-
strong guns as a part of their armament, to consist of
one of the largest description, 100-pounders, and two
40-pounders.—United Service Gazette.

ATTEMPTED MURDER.—OD Sunday afternoon an
attempt to murder was made in the neighbourhood of
the Wandsworth-road. A man named George Parsons,
a labourer, living at No. 7, Portland-street,-Wands-
worth-road, had been drinking with another man, named
John Price, a bricklayer, living at No. 3, Horace-street,
South Lambeth, at the Surrey Arms beershop, Spring-
place, Wandsworth-road, when a quarrel arose from
some nexplained cause, and a challenge to fight
ensued. The men went out of the beershop, and while
going down the street to a vecant piece of ground
the man Parsons was observed to take a large clasp
knife out of his pocket and open it. The man who
saw Parsons open the knife, called out to Price to warn
him not to fight, when Parsons rushed towards Price
and stabbed him twice in the back, fast between the hip
and the ribs, on the right hand side. The unfortunate
man Price immediately sank to the ground, weltering in
blood, and two of the bystanders seized the perpetrator
of the crime. Information having been sent to the
police-station, New street, Larkhall-lane, Inspector
Bushnell promply despatched Jones, 246 V., who at
once took the man Price into custody on arriving at the
spot. In the meantime the injured man had been con-
veyed to his residence, and Dr. Jones, with another
medical gentleman, attended, and found Price in a most
pecalions condition.

THE CASE OF PATERSON OR BONA-
PARTE VERSUS BONAPARTE.

This great cause celebre " Paterson Bonaparte Prince
Jerome gapoleon and others " came on before the Tri-
bunal of First Instance of th 6 Seine, on Friday last.
The coart was crowded to excess.

The President's chair was occupied by M. Benoist
Champi. The case having been called on,
M. Berryer, the illusttious and superior pleader, rose
and read to the Court his " conclusions," which ran
thus

" May it please ilie tottft td &elate valid the mar-
riage contracted on the 24th Vecont'ef, teCig, between
the late Prince Jerome and Miss Elizabeth Paterson:, to
take note (donner acted that M. Bonaparte, whilst

demanding that the marriage of the 24th December,
1804, be declared valid, never intended to question, and
does not question, the civil and political effects which
the 1211101 ii contracted in 1807, by his father, with
Princess Catherie of I'Vurtemburg, may produce."
He thed COMMenCed his atddiess rrs follows
men,--The aUthority of ferstiee, the MajiestY of Which
must alviais aia!d eieryWheie be reipeeted; is a saillicient
guarantee that in the Conduct of this Case i will net
allow myself to be influenced by eOnSideratiOnS foreign
to the question of validity whin is Eilitimitted to your
decision. The crowd of hearers which throggS this hall
warns me, that far from seeking to gratify an empty
feeling of curiosity, I must carefully adhere to the
simplicity of legal discussions. And yet there is much
to be said, there are many delicate questions to be
touched upon, in this great lawsuit. I will touch upon
them as briefly and delicately as is consistent with
my ditties. I will endeavour to forget the elevated
pOsitiort of the defer:tants; I will endeavour to ob-
tain for thy client only that jtistice Whin It would expect
if I pleaded only against a prifate eitiiert. I pritilished
a few days ago, according to the tith&hontetfred ciisford
of our bar, a memoir, containing a statement of fads;
which was not premature in any way. Before I resume
my seat all doubts will be removed from your minds
touching the authenticity of these documents, whatever
an anonymous writer in the Honiteur rashly ventured to
assert to the contrary: It is impossible for me, gentle-
' men, not to feel deeply moved when I reflect on the
'sufferings Which Mfs: Ilatefson lists endured for nearly
sixty years, during which she has antimisly avkalted this
'day of justice, this day which h to decide whether she
is to hold the position which is denied her, and which
she has never been unworthy to fill. This lady, now in
her 75th year, is present in this coutt, gentlemen—she
asks you to pronounce on the honour of her life, on
the legitimacy of her only son. M. Berryer then
proceeded to describe, the arrival of M. Jerome
Bonaparte in the States and his meeting with Mrs.
Paterson. Through the Spanish Ambassador, he
asked Mr. Paterson to grant him his daughter's hand.
He then described the marriage, read letters showing
the affectionate terms on which the young couple lived ;
he then in vivid and impassioned strains described the
heartless desertion which followed. For nearly sixty
years Mrs. Paterson had never ceased to claim her rights.
Bribes were offered, entreaties were made to induce her
to give up her claim to be considered the prince's wife,
and to submit to the degradation of calling herself his
mistress. She and her son now appealed to the laws
of France to vindicate their honour from the imputation
laid against it by a so-called family tribunal, composed
of, he knew not what persons, who arrogated to, them=
selves a right of pronouncing on the validity of a contract
which the law alone could pronounce upon. He then
entered into the legal part of the case. M. Berryer then
came to the decision of the conseil de famille annulling
the marriage, and pronOuncing the illegitimacy of M.
Bonaparte. He considered the decision of that tribunal
illegal, and proceeded at great length to state the law
relative to marriage and illegitimacy. The only solid
ground for questioning the marriage was its clandestine
celebration. He quoted a letter of M. Richon, the
French envoy to M. de Talleyrand, showing it to have
been made the subject of an official communication; its
celebration at Baltimore, already decided, was a further
proof of publication. He then proceeded as follows
to argue that the plea of the want of consent of
the parent of the bridegroom was groundless :

Having left this country whilst still governed by
the statute of 1792, M. Jerome Bonaparte thought
himself fully competent to marry. A new law was pro-
mulgated after his departure, and it was clear that he was
liable to the operation of that law when he married.
The consent of the mother was requisite, and in the
event of its being withheld the marriage might be
annulled. It is true. But the law, precise as it is,
contains an important proviso 'in this respect. Un-
doubtedly, according to the Code Napoleon, a marriage
is null when contracted by a minor under 20 years of
age without the consent of his parents. But the parents
must make their objections or protest before a twelve-
month has elapsed. Now, Madame Letizia did protest;
but though she knew of the marriage in 1803 her pro-
test was only drawn up in February, 1805—fourteen
months after the celebration of the marriage. The
protest itself is drawn up in such extraordinary terms
that I must read it to the court :

" Before Maurice Jean Raguideau and his colleagues,
notaries in Paris, there appeared her Imperial Highness
Madame Bonaparte, mother of the Emperor, residing in
her Palace, Rue St. Dominique, faubourg St. Germain,
who said—That she had indirectly heard tliat her son,
M. Jerome Bonaparte, had contracted a marriage in
America, for which her consent was not asked, and the
usual publications were not made at the place of his
domicile. That she cannot attach implicit faith to the
reports current, according to which her son has ignored
his duties and infringed the most solemn laws ; that if
the fact be such she will not hesitate to enforce all the
right the law confers upon her; that she could not take
any steps at present uiless she joined to her judicial
demand for annulling a legal copy of the marriage
certificate. That that document is not in her possession,
and is afisolutely. unknown to her. That, consequently,
any steps she might take are necessarily suspended, as
she cannot have prematurely a legal recourse against an
an act which now has no legal existence in France.
" Nevertheless—

" In order to make known her intentions, and that her
silence should not at any time be interpreted in a manner
contrary to her real sentiments—in order to manifest her
will as to the offence her son is alleged to have committed
against the laws and her maternal dignity, so that her
rights should remain intact, and that they may be enforced
by her representatives, to whom she expressly delegates
-them to enforce in ber name, and in lieu of herself were
she prevented from so doing, declares—
" 1. That her consent was never asked by her son,
still a minor, and that, had it been asked, she would
have refused it on grounds which the law does not
require her to state.
"2. That she solemnly protests against any marriage
contracted abroad by her son Jerome Bonaparte, without
her consent, and in contempt of the forms required by
law.

"3. That she reserves to herself to take steps to
provide a copy of the marriage certificate to have the
nullity of said marriage pronounced.
"All of which her Imperial Highness signed with said
notaries, &c."

Ilerryer proceeded to say it appeared to say it
appeared that a regular suit would be brought forward
before a regular tribunal, and an active correspondence
was exchanged between M. de Talleyrand and the
French minister at Washington, but the result was
simply the issuing of an imperial decree on the 28th
February, 1805, in which Napoleon I. attempted to
declare the union null, but the monstrous absurdity of
that decree was so patent to its own author that nineteen
days later he issued a more ample and revised edition,
which concludes as follows:

" Art. 1. The pretended marriage, contracted abroad
by our pretended brother Jerome Bonaparte is null and
void, and can never produce any civil effect. All con-
ventions relative to the said pretended marriage are
equally null and void.
" Art. 2. Any children born or to be born of the said
marriage will always be reputed as illegitimate, and
cannot claim any rights of parentage founded on such

union."

But can this decree (proceeded M. Berryer) have the
slightest authority in France ? Has it been clothed
with any formalities which constitute the promulgation
Of a law of the empire ? Is it signed by any minister,
or vised, like all imperial decrees, by the Secretary of
State, Maret ? Certainly not. Six weeks later, con-
tinued M. Berryer, the Emperor wrote to his Arch-
chancellor, as follows :
"Alexandria, 16 Floreal, An. XIII. (May 6, 1805).
"Monsieur l'Arche Chancellor,—M. Jerome has
arrived at Lisbon with Mdlle. Paterson, his mistress. I
have given orders for bins to some to me, and that his

mistress shall re-embark for America. I beg you to
make known to me what must be done for carrying on
the affair, and that the marriage may be made -,
and the model of the papers which he must sign if he
bad his consent."

Thus the absolute ruler himself expresses that the mar-
riage is not altogether void, and that the decrees are
utterly powerleis. The Arch-Chancellor (Cambaceres)
was a great jurist. What answer did he return to the
irritated despot ? " You must have a judgment, in order
that that woman should not be condemned without a
hearing, that the bastard should not be condemned as
such without having offered his defence." The Empe-
replies :

" 23 Floreal, An. XIII.
"Monsieur l'Arohe-Chancellor,—l have received your
letter of the 18th. I cannot agree with your opinion
about Jerome. If he were married in France before the
Etat Civil, it would require a judgment to annul it.
But married abroad, and his contract not being inscribed
on any register, and being a minor without any publica-
tion of banns, there is no more marriage than between
two lovers who marry in a garden, on the altar of love
and to the light of the moon and stars. They call
themselves married, but when their love is at an end
they perceive that they are not."

An attempt was next made to induce the Pope to
issue a bull annulling a ceremony performed according
to the rules of the church, and according to all the
legal formalities, which failed, as many other attempts
had since failed, to induce the Pontiff to act against
the dictates of his conscience and duty. (Here there
was some applause, which was immediately checked.)
This took place in 1805, but events crowded in suc-
cession upon each other. Jerome was wanted for a
German princess--the kingdom was to be created. The
marriage must be annulled at any cost. The Emperor
applied, and applied successfully, to the Officialite
(Bishop's Court). The OAcialitd after the Arch-
Chancellor, after the decrees, after the Pope ! What is

'%• .

• •