The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-07 00:00:00

FIFTH DAY.

The Court was, if possible, more crowded than on the pre-
ceding sittings.
The President stated that the Counsel for the defendant
was invited to make known anything else that he had to urge
against the plaintiff.
M. Illauguin said that a number of new facts had been
brought to light in the course of the proceedings, and that
he intended to demand a new examination. He wished to
state a fact relative to the affair of the warm baths. M.
Vigier, who already had an establishment of baths on the
Seine, and whose lease expired in 1832, had at that period
demanded a renewal of his lease, but he had obtained it only
at the expiration of three years, whereas the concession had
been made to Messrs. Vied and Coffinn in a few days. On
the part of the river allotied to these new baths there had
been boats and other establishments for the working classes,
for the suppression of which many ineffectual attempts had
been made under the restoration. M. Gisquet bad come to a
decision for forcibly expelling these boats, but not, it would
appear, through a regard for the interests of the river navi-
gation ; for, in a few days afterward, he permitted Messrs.
Viel and Coffinn to 'establish warm baths on the same spat.
The Court might enlighten itself on this point by applying at
the Prefecture for the decrees issued by M. Gisquet for the
suppression of the boats, and the establishment of the warm
baths in their place.
M. Gispiet declared his readiness to give all the informa-
tion thal might be required on this point.
The Advocate-General—Do you contest the fact, M.
Gisquet 7
M. Gisquet-" Yes, and no. A laugh.) He proceeded
to state that he admitted that the wood-merchants' boats had
been suppressed, but solely in the public interest, and to clear
the bed of the river, which in this part was choked with a
quantity of mud.
M. Mauguin said that as the fact was not 'denied by M.
Gisquet be had no wish to urge the Court to take information
on the 'subject. The Learned Counsel then addressed the
Court on behalf of the defendant. If everybody thought what
the Messager had published was true, his client was in that case
entitled to a verdict of acquittal. The Learned Counsel here
entered into the facts of the case, and laboured to establish
from the evidence the participation of M. Gisquet in the
different rpeculatione which gave rise to the charge of cor-
rupt and fraudulent dealing against him. In the affair of
the Parisiennes he observed that the demand for the con •
cession of the line was addressed to the Prefect on the 2d of
May by Messrs. Foucaud and Hediard, and granted on the
6th of the same month. Messrs. Moreau and Feu llant, the
directors of another line, injured by the competition, offsred a
compromise, and purchased the concession for 200,000 f. The
line bad been conceded to Messrs. Foucaud and Hediard on
condition of their giving en interest in the concern to M. Nay
and Madame de Nieul. Thus the parties interested in the
concern were M. Foucaud, the friend of M. Gisquet, M.
Hediard, the private secretary of M. Gisquet, M. Nay, the
son-in-law of M. Gisquet, and Madame de Nieul, a lady
whom it was not yet time to characterize (sensation). Madame
de Nieul had (sync her share, not of the expenses, but of the
profits. She had received twenty-five shares. worth 50,000
francs. Including the affair of the numbers, he said, that the
presents made by the ex- Prefect of Police to his friends
amounted to 735,000 francs; and for whose benefit were
these sums ? For the bent fit of his family, of M. C. Gisquet,
his brother ; of M. Nay, his son-in-law, who was already
indebted to him for a receiver generalship, and of Madame
de Pradel and her daughter, Madame de Nieul, the shame-
less harlot. under the protection of M. Gisquet.—( Sensation. )
The Learned Counsel argued that the largeeses of M. Gisquet
were at the expense of the municipality, as the profits of the
grants and concessions ought to have gone to the city and
And not to his friends and mistresses. His well-known pe-
cuniary resources at the moment of his appointment as prefect
of police, he contended, were insufficient to cover the adven-
turous risks to which he was exposed, and the' enormous ex-
penses which he incurred. He supplicated the jury to pro-
ticunce a verdict of acquittal, as a contrary verdict would be
tantamount to a guarantee of impunity for future misdeeds.
The Learned Counsel here resumed his seat.
M. Gisquet rose and demanded permission of the Court to
reply to the counsel for the ellessayee:—" Gentlemen of
the jury," said M. Gisquet, " I do not pretend to be a
pleader. I have been outraged; there has bsen just poured
ton me the gall and the poison which had before been dis-
tilled from the pen of the Messager.
The President—l must stop you, Sir; I will not allow you
insult M. Mauguin.
M. Guisquet—l shall not have recour-e to personalities.
The organ of my adversaries has addressed to me the most
outrageous observations. I could myself unveil tales of the
domestic hearth.
M. Maugnin=lf M. Gisquet wishes to allude to anything
which concerns me personally, I declare that I will hold him
harmless, and give him free permission to say what he chooses.
M. Guisquet--I make no particular allusions, my observa-
tions are meant as general.
The President--No one of the parties in this place has the
r'ght to touch on the private life of any one.
Af er a pause of some seconds, M. Guisquet resumed
big discourse. He said that M. Mauguin had vilified him
in his pleadings. He had been the partner of Casimir
Prier; ho had then a house of business with a capital of
1,100,000 f. On the Ist of August, 1830, he was named
member of the Council-General. He had already before the
revolution been a member of the Tribunal of Commerce.
In 1830 his fortune was the same as it is at this time. He
denied that be bad been guilty of a falsehood in asserting
that be had lost 35,000 f. by the musket contract; and be
added that the profits realised by him in England had been
derived from a private speculation in muskets, into which he
bad entered in that country. After reminding the jury of

him services in public life, M. Gisquet cKifi ti-,;• in priv:.te life,
been poisoned, au,i the confidence rep6A!,:l :a
depositary had been speculated upon. He had descended
to entreaty to avoid legal proceedings, the scandal of,
which would not fall upon himself—he bad proposed to his
adversaries to submit his conduct to a tribunal composed of
the friends of the National and the Courrier Francais, and
M. Mauguin himself; but this proposal bad been rejected.
He contended for the propriety and public utility of the con-
cessions which he had granted, and if they could be justly
interpreted as acts of corruption, he was totally ignorant of
the meaning of the word.
The Advocate-General, on the question of public uti-
lity, wished to know the nature of the s?rvices rendered to
the public by M. Foucaud and Madame de Nieul and her
mother. He thought it difficult to reconcile the grants made
to these individuals with the idea of a strict and upright Ad-
miniitration.
M. Gisquet replied that he had already explained with
regard to the lines of the Sylphides and Parisiennes. As to
his preference, he would, with the permission of the Court, be
silent. M. Gisquet here sat down.
M. Parquin replied on behalf of the plaintiff, and the Cow t
adjourned at half-past five.