The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-05 00:00:00

plaintiff) had come out of prison, be made this claim, and
was not satisfied with that, but he bad given instructions
to a man named Barry to write to several noblemen and
gentlemen making similar demands. One of them, Lord
Somerton, was now in court, and was prepared to swear
that he had never once been in the house of Madame Daub.
He want so far fix to instruct his alter/ley, Mr. Barrow, to
write a letter to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cam-
bridge making a similar demand for 84/. 6s. For that de-
mand there was not the smallest pretence, and his Royal
Highness had never been near the house. The learned
counsel then commented on the contradictions in the plain-
tiff's evidence, and referred to the particulars in which he
cbargcd the defendant with wine supplied and services
rendered during the months of May and June, 1851, while
he (the plaintiff) was actually at that time in prison under-
going his sentence. As soon as he (the plaintiff) found out
the difficulty he had got in he endeavoured to extricate
himself by shifting the date. But it would be clearly
proved that during the whole of the time mentioned in
the particu!ars the marquis was abroad. He left England I
in October, 1853, and did not return till the plaintiff was
in prison. After the plaintiff came out of prison he
called on the marquis, and the latter was induccd to
give him 5/. for two letters which the marquis bad
formerly written to Madame Denis; but even then he
ma le no claim upon him for wine. The learned counsel
then commented upon the letter which the plaintiff had
got Barry to write to the marquis, and argued that, from
the false suggestions which it contained, he (the plain-
tiff) was in the possession of letters and papers which
would support his claim; it was a manifest attempt at ex-
tortion. The marquis felt it to be his duty to expose the
deeply laid scheme of the plaintiff, and the Duke of Cam-
bridge also had come into court to lend his assistance in
defeating and exposing it.
The Marquis of Bath said—l am defendant in this
action. I visited this establishment. I came of age on the
Ist of March, 1852. There were French women there. I never
ordered any wine of that man (the plaintiff). I may have
had some wine in the middle of the day, and occasionally at
supper. I knew Madame Denis. I have always paid for the
wine, either at the time, or the next occasion. I used to make
her a present, which included everything. There may have
been three bottles put on the table —one of port, one of sherry,
and one of champagne. I never sent the plaintiff to Paris with
any letters at all. I left England on the 27th of October, 1853.
This is my diary. It was on a Thursday. I went to Paris, and
through Paris to Marseilles, where I sent my yacht. I re-
turned to England on the 22d February, 1854. I never was at
the house after October, 1853. I never employed the plaintiff
in 1854. He may have brought letters to me at the club, but
I never saw him. I have seen him open the door both going
in and coming out at Madame Denis's. Madame Denis said,
" Won't you give something to that poor Harrison ! He is out
all weathers." I gave him a sovereign. In July, 1856, the
plaintiff's name was brought up to me in Berkeley-square.
There was a long letter brought, which I threw into the fire.
I told my servant to give him (the plaintiff) a sovereign and go
away. He sent word that he wanted to speak to me. I told
the servant to let him come up. When he came up he either
said he was sent by Madame Donis or had received a letter
from her. He produced two or three letters which I had writ-
ten to Madame Denis before I went abroad. I took the letters
and destroyed them, and gave him Si. He thanked me for it,

and seemed extremely contented and pleased. He wade no
claim upon me for wine. He did not ask me for 5/. for his .
claim for wine. I gave it him as a free gift—as a reward for
bringing my letters. He made no claim for wine. Some time
after Mr. Barry sent in a claim. That was the first I heard
of any claim.
Cross-examined by Mr. Chambers—l was and am a member
of White's, and of the Coventry Club. I knew the plaintiff
as porter at the house. My impression is that he opened the
door as many as six, seven, or eight times. I visited Madame
Denis from February, 1852, to October, 1853. I have had
wines at supper. There'were not supper parties. Two or
three ladies might have partaken of it. I did not meet gen-
tlemen there. I once met accidentally one gentleman there ;
and on another occasion I took a friend there to show him
the house. I occasionally made Madame Denis presents. She
would suggest that I should give something for supper which
the women/Would like. On more than one occasion she has
requested that I would order wines. I should say most dis-
tinctly Harrison was not present. He is not a man I would
permit to be in the room when I was there. I have been
with Madame Denis in her room on the ground Boor. Ido
not recollect the plaintiff ever being in the room. I never
saw him except as a servant. Madame Denis has never iu
my presence given the plaintiff any order for wine. I had
just come to England when the plaintiff was tried. I never
sent any letters to Paris. After I got Mr. Barry's letter I
received another from him, and then gave them both to my
solicitor. 'He gave me up two or three letters I had written
to Madame Denis. They were written in French; I cannot
tell how many times I was at the house. I generally remained
a short time ; two or three hours.
Re-examined by Mr. James--The wine was for the ladies.
I paid Madame Denis for it. The letters were brought.
Mr. James proposed to call Lord Somerton and the Duke
of Cambridge to show that they had never been at the house.
Mr. Chambers objected that the evidence was irrelevant.
Lord Campbell said he could not admit the evi fence.
Mr. James said he tendered the evidence on tie ground
that the plaintiff had brought similar actions against both
the Duke of Cambridge and Lord Somerton, and both those
noblemen were anxious 'to deny that they had ever been at
the house.
Lord Campbell said he could not receive the evidence ; it
would be contrary to the rules of evidence.
Mr. James said that was the defendant's case, and he would
not insult the.jury by adding a single observation.
Mr. Chambers, in the course of his reply, said that nothing
could be more manly than the conduct of the Duke of Cam-
bridge, and.nothing could show more firmness than the readi-
ness which he had shown to meet even the breath of slander.
His presence in court that day was enough to give an answer
to any aspersions which might have been cast upon his cha-
racter.
Lord Campbell was about to sum up the evidence, when the
jury said it was unnecessary, as they had made up their
minds to find their verdict for the defendant.
Lord. Campbell said the action was a most unfounded and
infamous one, and the defendant bad done well in defending
the action.
A juryman observed that there could not be any entry in
the plaintiff's books or they would have been produced.
Lord Campbell said. that tho uncorroborated evidence of the
plaintiff was contradicted by his own conduct as well as by
, the Marquis of Bath, and that he (the plaintiff) was a danger-
ous member of society.
A juryman—And not worthy of credit,
Verdict for the defendant.
The records in the actions against Lord Bateman and Lord
Somerton wekv then withdrawn.