The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-10 00:00:00

THE KING V. MONTPRIVAT.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. Sergeant
ADAMS) stated the case for the prosecution. It was an indict-
ment at the instance of the Rt. Hon. the Earl and Countess
Cornwallis, charging the defendant, Richard Montprivat, with
publishing several libels reflecting upon the honour and chastity
of her Ladyship. The learned Counsel at considerable length
went into the early history of her Ladyship, whose maiden
name was Laura Hayes, up to the period of her marriage with
the noble Earl. The defendant had married a sister of her
Ladyship's named Caroline Hayes, and being in indifferent cir-
cumstances her Ladyship was in the habit of allowing them
about 50/. a-year. The defendant, however, doubtless with a
view of obtaining more money, was the means of circulating re-
ports highly prejudicial to her honour. Those attacks were first
made before the marriage between Lord C. and Miss L. Hayes,
and they seemed to have been circulated in order to prevent the
anticipated marriage, but they had not the desired effect.
They were continued still stronger after the marriage, and after
the defendant's first wife was dead, and when, in consequence
of his marrying another sister of her Ladyship, it was deemed
necessary to have no further communication with him. lhe
Jury would perceive what were the defendant's motives in
writing the letters in question, in which the grossest calumnies
were aimed at the character of this noble lady—a lady of the
strictest honour, who was greatly beloved by all who had the
pleasure of her friendship—who possessed the most humane
and charitable disposition, and who now, because the defendant
had married his first wife's sister, chose to attack her honour
and virtue.

The Learned Counsel then read the letters and documents.
They were addressed to different persons—to Lord Cornwallis,
to Lady Jemima Martin, and to Chas. Johnson, Esq., of the
post office. They spoke of rumours being afloat of Lord Corn.
wallis's improper intimacy with Laura Hayes previous to their
marriage, of her having been before then in keeping by a gen.
tleman by whom she had a child, &c. They stated that her
Ladyship had grossly ill-used him (the defendant), and that
unless she did him common justice, and also unless Lord Corn-
wallis would take some steps, he should publish a complete
statement of all the circumstances, and forward copies to the
Queen, to the other members of the Royal Family, to the Mar-
quis of Westminster, and to several other eminent persons, as
well as to all those who knew the Countess. The libels reached
down to 1832.

Mr. Edward Moore examined by Mr. Sergeant ADAMS—
I am a clergyman, living at Norwood, in which precinct is
Southall. I know the defendant; I have had letters from him.
The paper dated the 11 th December, 1832, is in his hand-
writing. (The other letters and documents, read by Sir James
Scarlett, were also stated by the witness to be in the defendant's
handwriting.)
Cross-examined by defendant—l never saw you write, but
have received letters from you, about which I have spoken to
you afterwards.

Defendant—Were you not employed to get back a daughter
of mine for me ?

Witness—Why, that is a very curious question, and I don't
know what it has to do with this case.

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said, that question had nothing to
do with this inquiry.

The defendant said it would show the aggravation he had
received.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said they had nothing to do at
present but with respect to the handwriting.
—. ... .

The libels were then put in and read. -
Witness cross-examined by defendant—l don't know that
Lady Cornwallis ever said she had a daughter named Maria.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said that had nothing to do with
the case.

The defendant said it had been asserted that he had sold his
aild Maria to the Opera-house people.
His Lordship said it could not be received at this stage of
the proceedings. The only evidence he could receive was,
that the defendant did not publish the letters, or that he pub-
lished them in some privileged manner.
Mrs. Elizabeth Welsh stated, that she lived at Southall, and
knew the family of Hayes. Miss Laura Hayes is now Lady
Cornwallis; Miss Caroline Hayes married a person named
Montprivat, but witness did not know him. Miss Caroline
died some years ago, and her sister Julia married the same
person. Witness had never seen Montprivat. Miss Laura
visited her elder sister Emily at Southall occasionally.
Cross-examined—Witness acted as agent for Lady Corn-
wallis.

Defendant—Did she ever write to you that I had been a
paramour to my own wife ?
The Loan CIIIEF JUSTICE held that to be an improper
question.

By Sir J. ScaaLErr—Was agent to her Ladyship in paying
money to her sisters before and since her Ladyship's marriage.
By defendant—Could not tell how long before her mar-
riage, but it was some considerable time.

The defendant addressed the Court at some length, contend-
ing that Lady Cornwallis had grossly ill-used him, and he said

it was strange, if any thing he had done had been improper,
that no proceedings were taken until several years had elapsed.
He had offered to give up his authors, and they were the per-
sons who ought to be proceeded against; for all that he had
done was to request Lord Cornwallis, and the other friends of
the Lady, to take some steps to clear the character of her
Ladyship frour the aspersions that were rumoured against her.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE having summed up, the Jury
immediately found the defendant Guilty.

THE KING V. RICHARD INIONTVRIVAT AND JOHN JOSEPH STOCKDALF..

Sir JAMES SCA RLETT stated this case also, which was an in.
dictment, charging the same defendant, as in the previous
case, together with John Joseph Stockdale, with a conspiracy,
in threatening the Earl of Cornwallis that they would publish
certain false and inflammatory libels against the character of his
Countess, unless the Earl gave them money. The Learned
Counsel detailed the same circumstances as in the previous
case, with the addition that since January, 1832., the defendant,
finding that all his previous applications and threats had not the
effect of inducing the Earl of Cornwallis to accede to his wishes,
got as his partner in the transaction the co-operation of the
other defendant, whose name as a publisher of certain works
was not unknown in the Court. He then react letters to show
the unity of the object of the two defendants, and then asked
the Jury if they could find any distinction between a highway-
man, who met his victim on the road, put a pistol to his
breast, and demanded his purse, and a man who, standing be-
hind his counter, and that powerful engine—the press—to rob
his victim of a character that was dear to him.
The case was proceeding when our reporter left.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Baron VAUGHAN and a Common Jury.)