The sun., 1873-07-28
The Rcnncit Lihnl Sn.t.

Several years ago NJ. DE BmNloNr. a
Frenc,Iuan of good family, married Miss
PAULINE PENNINAS, the daughter of an
American gentleman residing mt the time
IN Paris.
In Parisian society IL was reported that
Mr. PENNINAS was worth more than "A
million Of dollars, and if we may Judge
from subsequent events, the prospect Of
enjoying large share of this wealth was
one of the main inducements 10 NJ. DE
BEIMoNT To wed our young countrywomnn.
Al the end of two years Madame nE BRI-
MONT died, leaving Cnc child. Her mar
Iicd life Is said TO have been unhappy, and
her parents were very much disappointed
in her husband. soon after her death NJ.
DE BRIMoNr cndcaVored 10 obtain an al
lowance from his father-in-law for the
support of the child; but hi, efforts were
unsuccessful. He then brought an action
against Mr.. PCNNIMAN in the French court.
which gave judgment for De BRIMoNT in
the sum Of 5000 francs. In the mean
time Mr.. PENNIMAS had wisely disposed of
his property in France and returned TO
this country; and the difficulty was how
10 collect the Judgment NJ DE BRMoNr
brought an action IN the United States
court in this district to have the Judgment
of the French court carried out. Judge
BLATCHFoRD rendered decision agninst
him, holding that in the Unitel states no
obligation was recognized on the part of "a
man 10 support his son-in-law or give him
an allowance, and that to recognize such
an obligation would be to encourage fraud
and idleness.
The Hcruld Published an account of the
case, and made some comments not fiat
tering 10 N. DE BRnoNr. For these Mr.
BENNETT was arrested i'm Paris a few
weeks since, on tine complaint of NJ. DE
BhiMo&r, and was compelled to appcar
before the criminal court 10 answer "A
charge Of libel lie was condemned 10 pay
fine Of 1899 francs and COCO francs dam
ages.
How the French court could have the
right 10 call an American to account for
an alleged offence which, if committed
anywhere, was most certainly committed
IN the United States, it Is difficult to I'M
deTstand. II is probable, however, that
jurisdiction is asserted on one of two
hypothesis: the constructive publication
of the libel in France, or, what is equally
absurd, the supposition that French
criminal court can hold an American to
account for an alleged libel on q French
citlzen composed and published in
America.
As to the former HYPOTHESIS, the rule
established by the English common law
cisions, and sustained hitherto in the
United states, that the crime OF libel is
held to be committed in every county
wh"r" the newspaper containing IL Is sent
10 subscriber, applies to the different
counties of England and TO the different
States f our Union; hut can this doctrine
be extended to cases where the paper il
sent to foreign countricsf Assuredly no
surh forced Interpretation Of the law could
be upheld.
And if the libel was not publ he'd in
France how could the court have uIri.dic-
ton of the olIencei The penal code Of
Franc" prcscrib,s punishments for calum-
mes published IN writing or in print, which
lmpute facts such az might form the sub
Jecl OF criminal prosecution, or such as
would expos" one to contempt or hatred.
II is LAID down that if the fact imputed be
punishable with death, Imprisonment for
NE, or transportation, the calumniator is
liable TO imprisonment for from two 10
i've years, and to Il fine OF from 200 to q, Ona
francs, The truth cannot be pleaded gen
orally, and every impn.ntion s presumed
to be false unless specially established at
.he tr1al.
II is lald down by the great writers on
intei national law that nation cannot