The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-26 00:00:00

SINGULAR TRIAL.

M:Fenis de Tourondel, when he went to Eng-
land, had no other name, and he then for the first
time got the name of Rohan inserted in his passport.
At that time M. Fenis was wanted' by the public
prosecutor, who accused him of a serious misdr-
rneanour, namely, that of being a member, if not
the head, of a society formed for the purpose of
ituagl",4,J f-,vaign oiaHro-
The result of the trial was that M. Fenis alas
Rohan's accomplices were found guilty, and he
himself only escaped for the very sufficient reason
that he died first. In Jan, IF-iSS, Prince Camille
de Rohan received from his erusin,
Chabot, a letter in whirl, Prince de Rohan
A the facts of the usurpa-
tion of the name of Rr.,*han by M. Fenis were set
forth in the several instances of his passport, his
marriage certificate in England, and the act of
birth,' of his son inscribed in the civil register ill
Paris. M. de Rohan Chabot, in stigmatising these
facts, added, If M. Fenis had presumed to take
the name of Rohan Chabot, should have sent him
a writ directly ; it should not be endured that any'
imposter should be allowed to assume a name of
which there are many existing heirs." The fact is
that M. Fenis fled to Jersey to escape the researches
of the police. There he assumed the name of
Rohan, and lived upon charity, which he received
from the Roman Catholic chapels of the island. Un-
fortunately for himself, he conceived the idea of
setting up in his old business of selling titles of
nobility. An action was brought against him on
this account and he got in such bad odour in the
Isle of Jersey that he was fain to leave it and go
to London. He was then 68 years old, and
in a frightful state of misery and disease. Never-
theless, Miss Thompson, although only 20
years
old, was dazzled by the name of Rohaa, and not-
withstanding all the true information which she
received consented to marry him. The marriage
lasted six days, from April 27 to May 4, 1858. On
the latter day the husband died of a malady which
is described in the registrar's certificate as " pro-
longed consumption." Miss Thompson therefore
married a man at the point of death. Nevertheless
she became enciente, and was confined in Paris of a. son exactly eight months after the marriage, the
premature confinement being attributed to an acci-
dent.

Here the advocate was stopped by the First Pre-
sident Devienne, the Court being with him.
- The Appeal Court, confirming the judgment of
the Court below, held that Made me de Penis (nee
Thompson) had no right either to the title of princess
or the name of Rohan, and restrained her from
using them. This is a terrible lesson to ladies who
aspire to marry distinguished foreigners.

DESTRUCTIVE FIRE AT PUTNEY.

Last night about 6 o'clock, a mounted police-
officer arrived at the stations of th€ London Fire
Brigade with intelligence that a serious fire was
raging in River street, Putney. The moment the
news reached London, Mr. Henderson, the chief
officer of the D district, and Mr. Medcalf, engineer,
started with the engines from Southwark and
Waterloo-bridge roads. The firemen upon arriving
at the scene of danger found that the fire had origi-
nated in a private house occupied by a Mrs. Sarah
Davis, at No. 5, in the before-named street, and from
that spot had extended with more than usual rapidity
to four or five other buildings standing in the same
be-
ls
ot rnegeitn. g
taToarhnrmeidvenginesa fsaoelflpoetfrthl
cett
heh, parish, aLcrgoiarsnnehdad,
The fire was not ex.tinguished until past?
otl tenwt tallow
ro wtghaeedraesn doebl
works were
ol-
lemo'acwarllkoeycedkri.sn, at night. In a ad joining house to that inMr
Gwehoicrghethpe
e n se
fr. n,rttuhnee cnommenced, belonging to•
coroner's summoning officer,
iwas lying the dead body of a young woman, which
t was found necessary to carry into the street. The
damage done is thus officially returned by Mr. Hen-
derson to Captain Shaw, the superintendent of the
brigade 5, Prince's-street, Putney, in the
occupation of Sarah Davis (private), back rooms,
ground fluor, and two upper rooms and roof de-
stroyed, and the remainder of building and contents
severely damaged by fire, water, and removal ; con-
tents not insured, building insured in the County
Fire-office. No. 6, do., Mr. George Pedder, beadle
of the parish and summoning officer for Mr. Carter,
the coroner; roof destroyed, two rooms burnt out,
and rest of premises and contents severely damaged
by fire, water, and hasty removal; contents insured
1 in the Phoenix Fire-office, the building insured in
the County-office. No. 7, do., Mr. Dean (private)•
a seven-roomed house; damaged by fire and
water, and the contents by removal and breakage;
contents not insured, building in the County Fire
Office. No. 4, ditto, Mr. F. Blake (private) ; roof
destroyed and contents considerably damaged 19Y
fire, water, and hasty removal; contents not insuredp
,
contents considerably damaged by fire, water, and
building in the County Fire office. No. 3, ditto, Mr
Smith (private) ; about half of roof destroydestroyed and
removal ; contents not insured, but building in the
County Fire-office. The occupier of the Louse in
which the fire commenced was removin, and it is
believed that a spark flying from a lighted candle
causedthteoauttbreak.

A trial of remarkable interest, and one particu-
larly interesting to English ladies with a penchant
for foreign alliances,
took place on March 21, be-
fore the Imperial Court of Paris, presided over by
the First President, Devienne. In April, 1857,
Miss Clementine Thompson, an English lady, aged
20, was married in England to a French genric-
man, calling himself Jean Joseph, Prince de Rohan
do Fenis, de Tourondel, aged 68, since deceased. it
was pretended that the witnesses of the marriage
were Lord Clarendon, Lord and Lady Palmerston,
and several other persons of high rank. The hus-
band died a week after the marriage, and, as it is
alleged, in a galloping consumption. A son was,
however, born in Paris eight months after the mar-
riage, and this son was registered in his father's
names, at the Mairie of the 10th arrondissement.
The widow, ever since 1857, has called herself the
Princess do Rohan, and her infant son the Prince
de Rohan. In February, 1858, the Prince de
Camille de Rohan cited Madame de Rohan de
Fenis before the civil tribunal of the Seine, to show
cause why she should not be forbidden to
bear the name of Aohan. Madame de Rohan de
Tenis pleaded that the prince, being an Austrian
subject, could not appeal to the French tribunals on
the matter ; but the objection was overruled, the
cause was tried, and the tribunal gave a judgment
prohibiting Madame de Rohan de Penis and her
son from bearing the name of Rohan, and ordering
that the registration of the child should be rectified.
From that judgment the lady appealed.
The appeal cause being heard before M. Devi-
enne and other judges, M. Berryer, for the widow,
argued, as a preliminary objection, that being an
Englishweanan the Court had no jurisdiction over
her, This demurrer was, however, overruled by
the Court, on the ground that although the code
lays it down that a Frenchwoman marrying a
foreigner only loses her nationality during the mar-
riage, the converse proposition does not hold, and
that a foreign woman marrying a Frenchman, is, ie
the view of the French Tribunals, a Frenchwoman.,
even when a widow. This interesting point of
national jurisprudence is, it is believed, decided for
the first time. Upon the merits of the case M.
Berryer was not furnished with any positive evi-
dence even to show that his client's husband was
a Rohan, much less that he was a prince. He
stated in a general way that for two generations the
Chateau of Tourondel had been inhabited by the
ancestors of his client's husband, Count de Fenis,
and Marquises of Tourangel, who he alleged, were
a younger branch of the house of Behan, and had.
fallen into poverty. But his great card, and whiclit,
if it had not been discredited by the judgment of 'the
court, would certainly weigh greatly in the con-
troversy was a letter, which he read, address'ad by
Charles A.'s Minister of State to the indivithaai who
is now judically branded as an intriguer and im-
postor.
On November 11, 1828, Baron de La Bouillerie
wrote to the deceased husband of the defendant the
following letter :
" The Baron de La Bouillerie, peer of France,
Minister of State, Intendant-General of the King's
Household, has the honour to offer the assurance of
his most distinguished consideration to the Count
de Tourondel-Ventadour, and to inform him that,
conformably to his desire, he has had the honour of
laying before the King his title of marquis, which
his Majesty has condescended to examine atten-
tively, and which appears to him to be most hon-
ourable. In consequence, and in obedience to the
King's orders, the Baron de La Bouillerie returns
the papers, at the same time assuring the count, on
the part of his Majesty, that his titles have no
need to be renewed, seeing that they are heredi-
tary and perpetual, and that he could not have
better. His Majesty orders him further to assure
the Count de Tourondel-Ventadour that the title of
marquis most incontestably belongs to him, and
that he has a right to the title of Duke de Rohan
and de Ventadour, as being the head of the younger
branch of that house, and that he may therefore
use that title without authorisation. The Baron
de LA Bouillerie congratulates himself upon having
been able to do anything agreeable to the Count de
Tourondel-Ventadou
M. Lepecq, counsel for Prince Camille de Rohan,
described the deceased husband of the defendant
in terms that no one would suppose applicable to
the flattered correspondent of Ciiharles X. 's Minister
of State, and the man who was recognised by that
monarch as Count de Tourondel-Ventadour, Mar-
quis of something else, and Duke de Rohan. M.
Lepecq said—