Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-03-19
Alexander Dumas, the Novelist.

Our readers are aware that DUMAS has been
sued by gentleman named MAQuET, who
claimed to be cOauthor and co-proprietor of the
the works given to the public under the name
of DUMAS The suit has been decided and,
we give below the principal facts involved, as
detailed by the Paris correspondent of the
Memphis Eagle and Enquirer:
An expose of Dumas novel mandatory was
recently brought before the civil Tribunal of
Paris under the title of The Monte Christie Nouel,
and excited unusual interest in the literary
world.
Mr. Maquet the well known writer, brought
an action against Mr.. Alexander Dumas, ST.,
to have it declared that he was the coauthor
of eighteen novels, published by that author
in his own name, including " Monte Christi"
Vrnql ans 1Dres." - lie Chereiier de INdlSOn
Rouqe," etc, etc, also to obtain share in the
sums received for those works. Mr.. Maquet's
advocate, after expressing that gentieman's
regret at having to resort to law proceedings
against man with whom he had long been on
the most intimate terms, and stating that he
was obliged to do so in consequence of MIR.
Dumas having violated all the promises which
he had made to him, proceeded TO represent
that Mr. MaquCt was not, Us many persons had
supposed, merely sort of Secretary of Mr.
Dumas, charged to collect material for novels
and chronicles but that he was really the CO.
author of the works named. having with Mr..
Dumas drawn up The plan of them, conceived
MANY of the scenes, and actually written a
great part of them. THE mode in which the
two writer's proccCdcd.p said the advocate,
.'was this In repeated conversations they
drew up and settled the general plan ola work
and chose their pcrsonagcs. Then each set to
work TO make their persOnages act, and speak
in accordance with the plan the complca-
tons which one created were removed by the
other; when one wrote comic scene, the
other proceeded with dramatic one, so well did
their respective creations concord that no one
could have suppose that their works were the
productions of two minds In support of this
statement the advocate read extracts from a
vast number of letters from Alexander Dumas
to Mr.. Maquet: he then went on TO show that
that gentleman had not received a due com
pcnsation for his share in the labor.
Mr.. Alexander Dumas advocate then plead
his clients cause. and stated that Maquet had
presented himself to Dumas as early as 1887,
with work no one would purchase, and for
which the editor of the Recue DIES De,Lr Mondey
refused to give even hundred francs; aud
that Dumas rc-wrote the tale, spinning il out
to four volumes. called lie Cheyalier d Her
mental" and that he had given Maquet two
hundred aud forty dollars for it, Maquet sub
srauently brought several tales To Dumas,
who re-wrotc and heightened them, always pay
ing a reasonable sum for them, but upon Ma
uuet's presenting other tales to kim, he refus-
cd to take them. objccting to the immense la
Dor he was subjected to in rewriting the
works, but he made the following proposition
to him: IF you are DESTROYS that we should
work together, this is what we Will do. lwill
communicate to you the idea of IA novel; you
sbaIs hon 10 MAN
will re-write the work which shall be def
mite" And, according 10 Dumas advocate,
Maquet accepted, and from the beginning to
the end of this connection with Dumas, IL
was the latter who conceived the idea, wrote
the plan and drew up a complete list of the
different chapters of every work; Maquet on
ly writing sort of rough draft of each chap
ter In support of this statement several
letters written 10y Dumas To Mr.. Maquet were
produced. Afterwards some slips OF Maquet's
copy OF a chapter Of the ''Tulipe Noirc' were
produced as w,ll rs also the same chapter re
written by Dumas; and the latter was proved
to be- not only larger hut considerably more
animated, and to contain scarcely a line that
WAS in the other. Ii was alleged that the
same was the case with Monte Christie" and
other works Arriving at the pecunlary part
of the question. il was alleged by the learned
counsel, that il had been originally agreed
that NaQuct shOuiu receive Que huhuFcu uoi-
lars per volume, but his remuneration bad AZ
forwards increased to two hundred dollars,
and at a later period. to three hundred dollars,
and he asserted that MIR. Dumas had always
tax n special care to pay him regularly. In
proof that Dumas had done 80, several letters
were then read from him 10 Maquet, IN this
style: Thirty or forty pages more about
Chicot, and then tomorrow, If yea can. a
chapter Of the 'Maisoa Rouge Then day AZ
ter tomorrow, come aud breakfast with me-,
take one hundred dollars; aud we will work
at Monte Christie. Count on one hundred
dollars tomorrow, and one hundred doliarr
more for the end of the moath, but work;
work hard!' Those payments. the advocate
maintained, had been made by Dumas and &c
cepted by Maquet definite remuneration
for the latter : services, aud he had therefore
no right now Co demand a share ia the pro
ceeels Of the copy right of the works
Judgment was given in this case in which
Maauet claimed not only TO he declared CO.
author aud eo-proprietor with Mr.. Alexander
Dumas IN the production Of the works prodne-
ed la the name of this latter gentleman, but
also "a b. adjudged very considerable sum
OF motley, which he affirmed due 70 him for
his literary aid. The Judgment of the Court.
after recapltaiating the circumstances Of the
case. declares that Aaqnet cannot he consid-
cred Us anything bat the paid assistant OF Du-
mas, and that as such he has no claim what
ever 10 the authorship or PROFESSIONALLY u
the works published by this latter, and like
wise cannot call on hbE 10 pay anything be-
yond what had been originally agreed on. In
Consequence, Il declared Aaqaes noa-ssitrd
and condemned 20 pay costa