The Sun.
London, England, 1857-04-06 00:00:00

stated that she had known the Abbe since 1846 ; that he
volunteered his services as a friend to assist in arranging
her affairs, in which he assumed to take an interest, say-
ing that though he had no money himself he had friends
who could advance money, so that she might gain time to
arrange with her creditors. She accepted his friendly
offices, and in the year 1846 or 1847 she signed three
documents presented to her by him for signature, one of
which was for 25,0001., and another for 60,000 f., and
she believed they were acknowledgments that she had
received the said sums from him. She said the documents
were all drawn up by the Abbe, and that the reason why
she signed them was that he told her the Archbishop of
Paris required him to discontinue his visits at her house,
and that if she signed the documents he would show
them to the Archbishop, and he would then be satisfied.
She said she signed the documents on that representa-
tion, but she had never received any consideration for
either of them. She said she might have owed the Abbe
from 2,000 f. to 3,000 f. at that time, but not more, and
that he never advanced the 25,000 E mentioned. What-
ever advances the Abbe might have made in the years
1845-6-7, they were reimbursed wholly, or in the greater
part, by the sale of jewels and other effects, and by
moneys received by him on her account. In Sept., 1847,
she believed she owed the Abbe a balance of 1,0151.,
but she gave him an order to receive the amount of her
quarter's allowance, amounting to 1,2501., which she be-
lieved he received, thus making him her debtor for 235 f.
She stated that she was not now indebted to the Abbe
in any sum of money. The Abbe soon afterwards
told the deponent that he had shown the documents to
the Archbishop, and that he was satisfied ; and that, as
he bad no further use for them, he would throw them
into the fire, which whereupon he appeared to do.
She said the Abbe had never made any personal claim
upon her for the 25,000 f., or for any other sum.
She said she was first cousin to the Emperor Napo-
leon 111. She was then interrogated about a variety of
transactions, and in the course of her answers admitted
in 1846 the plaintiff had paid 1,800 francs to M. Tisse-
ron to redeem her furniture, and in 1845 he advanced
2,500 hams to redeem certain of her effects from the
Monte de Pietie. She stated that in 1845 she was ar-
rested at the suit of a jeweller, and confined in the go-
vernor's room at the prison of Clichy ; that she believed
she was removed to the Maison de Sante, Rue de Omit-
lot, through the instrumentality of the Abbe, and that
he paid 300 francs for her maintenance there. In the
year 1846 she said she was condemned by the Court of
Versailles to pay 1,000 francs and costs, and that the
Abbe then paid about 900 francs on her account. She
said the Abbe took apartments for her in his own name,
and paid 500 francs for the rent ; and in the year 1847
he paid a further sum of 450 francs for apartments and
wages. She said she did not know that the Abbe had
deposited any securities with Tisseron, and that he did
not give her a share in any mine. He did not bring her
•any account in the year 1847 ; nor did she thereupon
give him any document whereby she acknowledged her-
self to owe him the sum of 25,000 francs, or any sum ;
but she did sign a document presented to her by the
Abbe acknowledging a debt of 25,000 francs, in order to
its being produced to the Archbishop, and it was pos-
sible that the paper marked "A" (the document now in
question) might be a copy of such document. She de-
nied that she ever owed the Abbe at one time more than
3,000 francs; and she said that all that was due to him
had been paid. The Emperor Napoleon had paid certain
debts of hors, accordirg to a list furnished to him, but
could not tell the particulars, as the payments were not
made through her ; she believed the Abbe had not been
paid what he claimed, but she knew not why, unless it
was that he had no claim upon her.
Mr. Keating then summed up the defendant's evi-
dence, and commented at length upon all the facts of the
case as proved on both sides. He contended that the Car-
dinal had no meant, of testing the accuracy of the vouch-
ers produced by the plaintiff, and he set against them the
depositions of Madame Wyse, who declared that nothing
was due to the plaintiff. The statement of the Cardinal
as to the deposit of the document was entirely contra.
dictory to that made by the Abbe, and he trusted that
the jury would believe that a man of the Cardinal's cha-
racter would not tell an untruth.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott, in his reply, said it was not de-
nied that the Cardinal had had the document, nor could
it be doubted that he could get it by merely writing a
note to Mr. Wyse. The plaintiff's claim was said to be
answered by the deposition of a worthless Princess, who
said she had signed a false document in order to deceive
the Archbishop. The Cardinal had told the plaintiff he
bad better take his papers back to Paris. That showed
they were in his hands I He contended the evidence
showed that the Cardinal had detained the document,
which, acording to the laws of every creed, class, and
country, ought to have been given back. The plaintiff's
claim was well founded, and, though it was only a debt
of honour, it had one advantage, that it was not barred
by the statute of limitations, and though the Emperor
might not pay it, the plaintiff might some day obtain
payment from the children, to whose honour it was re.
ferred as a sacred debt.

Mr. Justice Crowder, in summing up the evidence,
said the questions for the jury were, whether the de-
fendant detained the document, and if so, what damages
the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the detention.
His lordship contrasted the evidence given by the plain-
tiff as to the advances made with the depositions made
by Madame Wyse, in which she denied that she was in-
deb':,ed as alleged. It did not very satiefactorilyappear how
the plaintiff came to advance Madame Wyse so much
money, but still the jury ought to look upon her denial
with great caution when they found that she had ad-
mitted that she bad signed the document, but sought to
avoid it by saying that she signed it for the purpose of
deceiving the Archbishop of Paris. His lordship then
went through the particulars of the case with great mi-
nuteness, contrasting the evidence of the plaintiff with
that given by the defendant. The paper was last
seen in the possession of Mr. Wyse in December,
1847, and the probability was that it was not destroyed.
But the question now was, whether it was detained by
Cardinal Wiseman ; and if so, what damages the plaintiff
was entitled to for its detention. The measure of da-
mages was the value of the document, and this the jury
must assess according to their opinion of the probability
of the debt being paid if it were given up.
The jury then retired to consider their verdict, and on
their return into court found for the plaintiff--damages
5001.
Mr. Seating said that as it was proved that the docu-
ment was last seen in the hands of Mr. Wyse in Dec.,
1847, he hoped his Lordship would stay execution, in
order that the defendant might communicate with Mr.
Wyse to see if the paper could be procured.
Mr. Huddleston said the aetion was commenced in
December last, and there had been plenty of time to
communicate with Mr. Wyse at Athens.
Mr. Justice Crowder thought the application an un-
usual one, but his Lordship ultimately stayed execution
till after the 4th day of Easter Term (this day fortnight).

RAILWAY TRAFFIC .RETURNS.

TRAFFIC RETURNS FOR THE WEEK.