The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-12 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER COURT.

MOSCATTI V. LAWSON.
(Concluded from The Sun of yesterday.)
William Botherby, Esq., examined by plaintiff--Is re-
gistrar to the Bishop of Winchester. Employed plaintiff in
June, 1833, to instruct his sons during their absence from
school. When, they went back to the academy, plaintiff
instructed his daughters in Italian till about December.
Had paid plaintiff about sixty guineas.
By Mr. Baron ALDERSON—Did not employ him again
in consequence of the paragraph in the Times.
Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT—Plaintiff had told him
that he had been wounded in Russia ; understood the
wound was from a bullet in his leg. Never heard him say
Sir Astley Cooper bad offered him a thousand pounds for
his head, in consequence of the wound in it.—(Laughter)
Never heard plaintiff say so high a price was set upon his
head.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL,—I was a post obit.—(Laughter.)
Cross-examination renewed—Said he had been to China,
and seen the wall. Heard him relate that he had crossed
the deserts of Arabia. Plaintiff did not say he had gone
through them in the disguise of a quack doctor.—
(Laughter.) Presumed, from his statement, that he had
traversed the deserts on an elephant.—(Laughter.) Did
not hear plaintiff say that he was condemned to death by
the Arabs, and that his life had been saved by a woman.
Did not hear plaintiff mention the enormous serpents he
had seen. Had stated that he had fought many duels
and was an excellent shot. Heard him say that he had
killed more than one in Italy and France. Plaintiff had
told him lie had been to New York. Had been introduced
at Mr. Pettigrew's conversations to plaintiff, as " Marquis"
Moscatti, by Dr. Moore. Plaintiff did not say where-
about in Italy his estates were situated. Did not say they
were near Mount Vesuvius.—(Laughter.)
John Roberts, Esq., a ship-owner, had employed the
plaintiff to instruct his family, and that he had declined his
services in consequence of the attack in the Times.
Samuel Smith, Esq., was called to prove a similar fact,
when—
Mr. Baron A LDERSON suggested that sufficient witnesses
had been called to prove special damages, and that to call
more would be a waste of time, without any additional ad-
vantage accruing thereby to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had
better call witnesses on his other points.
The plaintiff declined to call any more witnesses at present.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL then addressed the Jury, and said
that the question was whether the articles in the Times
were true, and of that point the plaintiff was fully aware.
In this charge to the Jury the plaintiff had tried to excite
the compassion by representing himself as an unfortunate,
friendless, and persecuted foreigner ; but he had not at-
tempted to prove that the charges preferred against him in
the Times were not true. The proceedings of this day had
presented to them a melancholy exhibition ; for while he
believed the plaintiff to be a man of considerable acquire-
ments he did think that he was cursed with a total disregard
of truth, and that he knew not the difference between truth
and falsehood. He was of opinion that Moscatti had been
born in low life, and that while he bad raised himself by his
talents lie still retained all the vices incident to his situation

in his younger days. Plaintiff had certainly much amused
they world by his fiction, and till that fiction was discovered
many eminent people rejoiced in his friendship. They had in
evidence that he had told the most palpable untruths, and he
(Sir John Campbell) could not imagine that the plaintiff had
brought his action for any other purpose than that of esta.
blishing himself the greatest romancer in Europe. In fact,
plaintiff completely rivalled the celebrated Baron Mun-
chausen. ( Laughter.) There was scarcely the most
trifling shade of difference between them—Munchausen
was a German Baron, and Moscatti an Italian Marquis.—
(Laughter.) The learned Counsel alluded to the travels
and campaigns of which the plaintiff had described him-
self as the hero ; but not only had he figured in these,
but he had fought in many duels, and in all of these he
had hit his antagonist in the eve.—(Laughter.) He (Sir
John Campbell) and his learned Friends had thought they
should be able to prove that plaintiff had said he had not
a wound in his cerebellum, and that Sir Astley Cooper
had offered him 1,0001. for his head. They had not suc-
ceeded in that ; but they had ascertained that plaintiff had
described himself as suffering under a wound, which seemed
to be a sort of ambulatory wound, now in his leg, now in
his side, now in his abdomen ; in fact, in any part of his
body in which it might suit him for the time being to have
it. (Laughter.) Did not these departures from truth
prepare the Jury for the plea of justification which hi.:
clients were about to put in ? Had the plaintiff confined
himself to romancing, the Tinter would not have touched
him, but have left him to please those who delighted to listen
to such monstrous absurdities. But at length his lies assumed
a more injurious and malicious character. Among other
falsehoods, plaintiff described himself as writing the foreign

articles of the Times, at a salary of three guineas a day. He
further stated that he had seen a receipt for 5,0001. at the
Times office, from that journal to Louis Philippe, being
the amount of a bribe given by that Sovereign to the paper
for advocating the line of policy he pursued. There was a
most distinguished scholar and respectable gentleman con-
nected with the Times, he alluded to Mr. Barnes. Plain-
tiff had represented himself, as he (Sir John Campbell)
would call witnesses to prove, that he had dined with
that Gentleman. Plaintiff said on that occasion they dined
off plate presented to Mr. Barnes by the Pacha of Egypt ;
that he had seen two golden bowls on the sideboard, on
which were inscriptions stating that they had been sent by
Louis Philippe to the editor. To complete his story,
plaintiff said he had seen two cashmere shawls on the sofa,
one of which had been given to Mrs. Barnes, by the Schah,
and was of so a fine texture, that it might be enclosed
in a snuff-box, and that it had cost 500!. even in Persia
—(Laughter.) These reports coming to the Times, inqui.
ries were made, when it was discovered that a:2 defendant
had not only circulated these calumnies in England, bui
propagated them on the continent. Sir J. Campbell then
proceeded to read the paragraph complained of in the
Times, and, commenting on the circumstances which had
led to their insertion, said the Times had behaved with
great forbearance towards the plaintiff, who had written
against the Times to the Standard, and it was highly cre-
ditable to the latter journal that when it discovered the
false statements of which it had unconsciously been made
the vehicle, that it made the most honourable reparation to
the Times. Moscatti was so habituated to fiction that he
appeared more offended with the Times asserting his
pacity to write leading articles than charging him with wil-
ful falsehoods. But if plaintiff had been engaged to write
foreign articles for the Times, his want of veracity was
such that he would probably have written that Louis Phi-
lippe was going to war, or the Duke of Orleans would be
killed with a poke in the eye.—(Laughter.) Even had he
the ability to write foreign articles, his war:: of veracity
would have been an utter disqualification. He would pro-
duce witnesses to show that plaintiff had never dined with
Mr. Barnes.—(The Learned Counsel read a letter, in
which it was stated that plaintiff had told a foreign book-
seller in Regent-street that he could command reviews in
the Times, Atheneum, Literary Gazette, and New Monthly
Magazine.) He often left places where he had called in a
great hurry, saying he was going to the Times office.—
(Laughter.) Persuaded the bookseller to send three copies
of a foreign book published by him to three reviews, where
he said he could procure a notice. The books were not re-
viewed, and poor Balliere lost books to the amount of 30s.
Plaintiff had said that when lie dined with Mr. Barnes, the
Chancellor was expected but he did not come, and sent his bro-
ther instead (Laughter.) Plaintiff had also described Talley-
rand as offering him 100,000 francs not to write on the
siege of Paris in the Constitutionnel, but the plaintiff had
refused. He (Sir John Campbell) believed the plaintiff
had told so many lies that he bad become his own dupe.
He was not much of a craniologist, but he thought when
the plaintiff's cranium was examined, the bump of invention
would be found very much expanded—(Laughter.) If
there was such an organ as mendacity that would be cer-
tainly discovered on an investigation of plaintiff's skull—
(Laughter.) The plaintiff ought, in the words of the Times,
after his base conduct, to " have gone to some obscure
corner to hide his head till his name and offences were for-
gotten," but in coming to Court, Moscatti seemed abitious to
have it proved that he was one of the most infamous liars
in the world. He did not know whether to look on the
plaintiff most with feelings of compassion or disgust. He
doubted whether that man had not lost his reasoning facul-
ties as well as his moral senses. It would be necessary to
contradict his malicious lies,, and be (Sir J. Campbell)
hoped that the plaintiff would from that time, if capable of
reformation, endeavour by his future conduct to make some
atonement for the offences of which be had been guilty.
If such an alteration took place in plaintiff's conduct the
Learned Counsel did not doubt that the Times would give
him the assistance and support of which his behaviour had
proved him so unworthy.
Hippolite Balliere, a foreign bookseller, living in Regent-
street, was the first witness called fbr the defence, and exa-
mined by Mr. PLATT—The plaintiff called at his 'shop in
1832 and 1833 very often. On one of those occasions he
told him that he was engaged to write foreign articles for
the Times at three guineas a day. He said he could com-
mand any review of books in the Times. He told him that

he had written an attack on Joseph Bonaparte, which had
appeared in the Times, and added that he was going to write
against the Duke of Orleans, who was then in London.
Plaintiff called the Duke of Orleans a vagabond, and said
that he could shoot him. Plaintiff would often leave his
shop, saying he must be at the Times, to write for it. He
induced me to send three copies of a foreign work, pub-
lished at 10s., to the New Monthly Magazine, Athenceum,
and Literary Gazette, and gave witness his card to read
with the books. Witness accordingly forwarded them, but
they were never noticed. Never got his books returned.
Cross-examined by the plaintiff.—Balliere, do you know
that when a man perjures himself in this country he is
transported ?
Witness—Of course I do. Did not know the exact
date when he first saw plaintiff. Did not remember when
plaintiff first called that he brought a physician to speak
about publishing an anatomical work.
Plaintiff—Do you swear that ?
'Witness (very loudly)—Yes, I do swear.—(Laughter.)
Plaintiff—Oh, Balliere, that is too bad.—(Laughter.)
Witness heard plaintiff say, when he first came, that he
was a poor man. Thought him a very rich man, for he
said that he had a house in Regent's Park, and that he
had the Duke of Sussex and other great people to a party.
Was sure that plaintiff said he wrote for the Times, and
said that he thought he talked so much to make him ap-
pear a very great man.
Plaintiff—Did I ask credit of you ?
Witness—No ; you gave me eighteenpence for a book,
and then you grumbled.
Dr. Eliotson, cross-examined by Mr. HUMFREY—In the
beginning of 1832 was introduced to plaintiff as Marquis
Moscatti. Plaintiff said that he was a Knight of Jerusa-
lem, and a Knight of the Grand Cross of the Legion of
Honour, for which he had a pension of 2.50/., of which he
had just been deprived by Talleyrand. Soon after, to his
surprise, witness learnt that plaintiff was in distress, and
relieved him, on seeing his breeches all torn.—(Laughter.)
Ordered him a new suit immediately. Invited plaintiff fre-
quently to his house ; but always when he had parties of li-
terary men, who he thought might serve the plaintiff. Mr.
Barnes dined with witness, when plaintiff was introduced to
that gentleman. Soon afterwards, in July, 1833, witness
went to dinner with Mr. Barnes, in Nelson-square, and told
it to plaintiff next morning. Plaintiff did not of course dine
at Mr. Barnes's. Many persons had told witness that plain-
tiff was a great exaggerator, in fact they used another word.
—(Laughter.) Having detected plaintiff in a falsehood rela-
tive to a sofa belonging to him, witness, in a friendly manner
remonstrated with plaintiff on the ill consequences which
would result to him if he continued his habit of telling
falsehoods. Moscatti, very much offended, took up his
hat and said " May I never come into your house till I tell
another lie." Witness saw nothing more of the plaintiff,
and was much surprised at his absence. Witness subse-
quently wrote to the editor of the Times, touching the re-
ports plaintiff had circulated of him. When he dined with
Mr. Barnes saw none of the costly articles described by the
plaintiff. Plaintiff had also told him that he was a tre-
mendous duellist, and that he had killed one of Lord El-
don's nephews, a transaction arising out of being sent for
by Lord Eldon and Sir John Leach to give evidence against
the late Queen.

Cross-examined by the plaintiff—Had not desired to lie
introduced to him. Had heard that plaintiff knew thirty-
three and spoke twenty-three languages fluently.—
(Laughter.)
William Costello, Esq., examined—ls a surgeon in Bru-
ton-street. Met the plaintiff in the summer of 1833, in the
Strand, coming from the City. Plaintiff, in the course of
conversation told him that he had come from the Times,
and had seen a receipt from the Times to Louis Philippe
f0r5,0001., which he said had been paid to the Times by
the King of the French, for supporting the course of politi-
cal conduct which that Monarch chose to pursue. He
was not quite sure whether it was 5,0001. or cinq mille
francs the plaintiff had said, but recollected 5,0001., because
plaintiff had said the same to Mr. Merle, who had ex-
pressed himsels ready to confirm this. Mr. Merle was on
the Continent.

Mr. Alsager, a proprietor of the Times, swore that never
to his knowledge had there been a receipt given for money
received from Louis Phillippe or any other foreign Poten-
tate for services rendered by the political writings of the
Times, nor had money ever been received for any such pur-
pose from such quarters. It was his business to superintend
the money department of the paper.
This was the defendant's case.

The plaintiff, in his reply, which occupied about twenty
minutes in the delivery, declared that he was the victim of
a conspiracy on the part of Barnes and his friends and
College associates, who were the constant companions of
his dinner table.

Dr. Elliotson stepped forward, and, in contradiction to
the assertion of the plaintiff, stated that he had not been at
College with Mr. Barnes, nor was he in the habit of dining
with him oftener than once a year.
The plaintiff said it was impossible for him to find wit-
nesses to rebut the evidence brought against him. He was
a poor Neapolitan gentleman, and was to be made a sacri-
fice to the caprices of Mr. Barnes. He did not and never
bad pretended that he had himself seen the receipt for the
im:iney of Louis Philippe, but it was natural for him, seeing
so ina,7 changes in the opinions and politics of the Times,
to supposethat it was at least paid for its corruption. Was
it not natural for him and others to think so ? He should
leave his case ift the hands of the Jury, assuring them that
until he became the victim of the attacks of this changeable

Journal he was the delight of all societies, and had mere
engsgements than he could perform.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON here suggested to the plaintiff
that he had better consider whether it would not be ad'
visable that he should consent to the withdrawal of a Juror'
The plaintiff expressed an unwillingness to adopt the
suggestion of the Learned Baron ; but the Jury having
timated their concurrence in the opinion of the Bench, this
course was followed.—The trial lasted to within a few
minutes of seven o'clock.