The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-24 00:00:00

CRIME IN FRANCE.

A man ten days ago walked into the office of a
commissary of police, and said, " My name is Calon-
dot, and I have come to be arrested." "What for ?"
"Because I have stolen a " Are you seri-
ous ? " " Perfectly—and there is the watch." He
produced one. " I stole it from a lodging-house at
Ivry." The man would not give any further ex-
planations, and was taken into custody. Three clays
after he was placed at the bar of the Tribu-
nal of Correctional Police, and was asked
to gave details of the robbery; but all he
would say was, " I stole the watch from a man I
don't know, and want you to condemn me ! "
" But why do you accuse yourself ?" " Because I
heard that the gendarmes were looking for me,
and I thought right to save them trouble by giving
myself up !" The Tribunal, before giving judgment,
directed that inquiries should be made in lodging-
houses at Ivry if any watch had bean stolen there,
and in the meantime ordered the man to be de-
tained in custody. On Saturday Calondot was again
placed at the bar, and a lodging-house keeper of the
village deposed that a watch had been stolen from his
house. " Are you satisfied now ?" cried the prisoner.
"And could you not believe me without giving
this good man the trouble of coming here !" The
Tribunal sentenced the thief to two months'impri-
sonment, at which he appeared much pleased.
The Tribunal of Correctional Police has just been
occupied three days in trying a young man named
Durieu (son of the ex-chef de division in the
Ministry of Public Worship, who was recently,
condemned to four years' imprisonment for for-
gery), on the charges of swindling, usury, and
irregular bankruptcy ; and three Englishmen, Mr.
Peter Morrison, Director of the Bank of Deposit
at London, Mr. George Mitchell, described as a
person of property, also of London, and Mr. T.
H. Whitmarsh, an assurance agent, of Paris, were
accused of complicity in the alleged swindling.
When the case was called on the latter person did
not present himself. Counsel. for Mr. Morrison
and Mr. Mitchell raised the technical objection
that, even if what they were accused of could be
proved—and they alleged that it could not—it had
been done at London, and was consequently out of
the jurisdiction of the French courts; and they ac-
cordingly prayed that the charge against the
two gentlemen should not be entertained. The
tribunal, however, after hearing pleadings on the
point, decided that, until the facts of the case
were before it, it could not say whether or not it
had jurisdiction; and it directed the matter to be
gone into. On that, Mr. Morrison and Mr. Mitchell
declared that they would make default. Evidence
was then given to this effect :—M. Garelli, mana-
ger of a bank at Leghorn, having gone to
London in 1858, was recommended to establish a
branch in that city, and a member of Parliament
introduced to Mr. Morrison, of the Deposit
Bank. After some negotiation, an arrangement
was come to between them that a branch should
be established in communication with Morrison's.
One part of the arrangement was that an ex-
change of shares between the two banks should
be effected, but for what precise purpose was not
clearly explained. The branch having been esta-
blished, Garelli handed a number of shares in his
bank to Morrison, and the latter gave him some of
the Deposit Bank. But after a while misunder-
standings arose, and Garelli wanted to be off the
arrangement. He accordingly employed Durieu,
with whom he was acquainted, to go to London to
get back his shares from Morrison in return for
those of the Deposit Bank ; that person, however, he
alleged, betraying his interests, gave up to Morrison
the Deposit Bank shares for 75,000 f., though they
were nominally worth infinitely more, and did
not get back from that gentleman his (Gareth's)
shares. Darien, moreover, out of that sum appro-
priated 35,000 fr. to his own use. Garelli insisted
that in this affair Morrison was in connivance with
Durieu, and as to the other two Englishmen he
alleged that they likewise had been mixed up in it.
As to the other accusations against Darien alone, it
was stated that he had established at Paris a bank
called the " Man datair Mobilier," for the purpose of
making speculations on the Bourse, but had failed,
leaving a deficit of 200,000 fr. That he had by means
of pompous advertisements promising large divi-
dends on capital which might be confided to him,
obtained various sums of money from different
persons, and had not only not given them any
dividends, but; Lad not restored their deposits;
had made small advances on shares entrusted to
him, and had then sold the latter and appropriated
the proceeds ; had lent money constantly at the
usurious interest of from 12 to 36 per cent., in some
cases even at 90, and once at 120, and finally had
not kept regular accounts. The Tribunal de-
cided that the facts alleged against the three Eng-
lishmen had been done at London, and that conse-
Inently it could not entertain the complaint
against them. As to Durieu it condemned him
to a year's imprisonment and 50 fr. fine, also to pay
100,000 fr. damages to Mr. Garelli,