The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-01 00:00:00

EXPRESS FROM PARIS.

AN ILLUSTRATION OF PARISIAN
MANNERS.
(nom ouR OWN OONENSPONDENT.)
PARIS, SUNDAY VINING.

A great horse-dealing case, just decided by the
Civil Tribunal of the Seine, elucidates a great many
curious points of modern Parisian manners. We
learn from it not only that a French duke pays the
astounding price of 0001. for a horse to give to—a
lady who is anybody else's mistress as well as his
own, but that the intimate friends and associates
of that lady are counts and princes, moving in the
very highest circles of court society. The plaintiffs
in the case were MM. Caviller and Cellier, horse-
dealers in the Rue Jean Goujon. The defendant
was Mdlle. Cora Pearl, one of the queena (do not
mistake the spelling) of the demi-monde. The action
was brought to recover 2001., the price of a bay
horse, sold, as the plaintiffs alleged, to Miss Cora,
and also the sum of 1,134 fr. for the standing at
livery of a grey horse belonging to her, and sent
to their stables for sale. From the evidence it ap-
peared that some time ago the Duke de Rivoli made
a present to Cora Pearl of the grey horse in question,
which was a remarkably fine animal, with "high
action," and for which he paid 15,000 fr. ! This
horse unluckily turned out to be somewhat too
"playful," as a Mayfair groom would say, for the
lady. In fact he ran away with her twice in the
Bois de Boulogne, and the second time threw her
off. After this mishap she resolved to get rid of
him, and sent him to Caviller and Cellier's stables.
At that time the defendant was on excellent terms
with M. Cuviller, as is shown by a letter read at
the trial, in which she speaks of having sent him a
set of shirt studs which she hoped he would like.
Her answer to the action is that the plaintiffs took
the grey horse in exchange for the bay one, and
that she owes him nothing. As usual in horse cases
there was a good deal of hard swearing on both
sides. A prominent member of (a jeunesse
do*, Count de Vauvineux, deposed that at
the request of Lis friend Prince Achille Murat
he went to look at a grey horse belonging
to Madlle. Cora Pearl, and that Prince
A. Murat greatly pressed him to buy it. As, how-
ever, it did not match any of the horses in his
stables it did not suit him, but he recommended
it strongly to several of his friends. He was
quite certain the plaintiffs had told him that the
horse did not belong to them. Other witnesses
for the plaintiff certified that when they looked
at the horse with the idea of buying him they
were referred to Mdlle. Cora Pearl for the lowest
price. The principal witness for the defence was
Prince Achille Murat, who wrote the following
letter, which was read in court :
I certify sad attest that is my presence M. Curlier,
horse dealer. exchanged with Male. Cora Pearl • bay
horse (aged) against • grey horse, six years old, belonging
to MdUe. PearL The bargain was concluded in my pre-
sence, as an out and out exchange, without any money
to be paid on either side.
(Signed) PnErscl ACHIL LE.

After this positive evidence of the Duke de
Mouchy's brother-in-law, the court said, it being
impossible to know on which side the truth really
lay, the only true rule for the decision of the cause
was that the burden of proof should be thrown
upon the plaintiffs, and they having failed affirma-
tively to make out their case, the action was dis-
missed with costs. Cora Pearl, therefore, is vic-
torious. It came out that the vicious grey horse
for which the Duke de Rivoli paid 15,0001 r. was
sold by auction pendente lite under an interim order
of the court for 2,800 fr.
The communique to the Opinion Nationale on the
extradition treaty appears this evening. It is by
no means ferociously worded, and admits that the
article in the Opinion contained " interesting and
judicial considerations." But the French govern-
ment maintains, contrary to the assertion of the
Opinion and the Times, that no single instance of
the delivery up to French justice of a criminal
refugee in England has ever occurred under the
treaty. The statement that from 10 to 14 French-
men had been surrendered by England since 1843 is
based upon the mistake of reading in the tables,
"demands granted" for "demands made." A
complaint is made that in one particular case the
arrest of a refugee ordered by a French colonial
judge was refused, because, although the judge was
a Frenchman, he had no jurisdiction in France.
I dismiss this point with the observation that the
English magistrates undoubtedly put the right con-
struction on the treaty in refusing the extradition
in that instance. The communiqué admits that the
English government has never in terms refused to act
upon the treaty ; but it seeks to draw an invidious
distinction between the English government and
English magistrates. The latter, it says, require
the presence of a prosecuting attorney or counsel,
"at great cost," and are so unreasonable as to re-
quire evidence before they will commit an accused
party for trial. Here is the gist of the whole diffi- I
culty. The French government requires that any
French subject enjoying the Immunities of British
soil shall be delivered up on the mere accusation of
a French functionary. That is a thing which the
English parliament will never accede to. The
principles of French and English law are radically
different. In England every man is presumed
innocent till he is proved guilty. In France the
contrary principle is, if not openly avowed, practi.