On the 1st February 1803, the Prince of Aremberg contracted marriage with Mademoiselle Stephanie Tascher, niece of Napoleon's first wife. In the contract of marriage, Napoleon settled a dowry of one million for the benefit of the future wife, under condition that this sum should be employed in the purchase of a hotel, which should not be held in common, but be always the personal property of the Princess of Aremberg. On the formally expressed wish of the Princess, Iowever, who would have a palace and not an ordinary hotel, 1,096,000 francs was vested in the purchase, repairs, and furnishing of the fine hotel of Bouillon. The portion of this hotel let at present produces only 10,000 francs, being scarcely enough to keep it in repair, and pay the ordinary and extraordinary taxes.

For several months past, the Prince of Aremberg has in vain employed persuasion in the first instance, and then the means prescribed by law, to compel his wife to live with him, not in his states, but in the conjugal domicile; the

latter has constantly eluded this, and on the 4th of October last, entered a claim of nullity of marriage, thus to obtain the pretext of demanding a maintenance from her husband.

M. Bonnet, Counsel for the Prince, opposed the claim on the ground, that the conjugal tie still subsisted; and the attempt made by the Princess to dissolve it, had, as yet, no result before the tribunals, because the whole of her dowry was absorbed in the unproductive purchase which her husband had been compelled to make; and because, besides, the respective situation of the two parties was now altered. At the period when the claimant had the title of Sovereign Princess, and figured at a superb court, she had annually 240,000 francs at her disposal; but now that she had entered the ordinary class of society, the 36,000 francs of pinmoney which she claimed was out of proportion with her rank in life, as well as with the present fortune of her husband. The Princess of A: emberg had in her possession moveables of great value, plate, diamonds, and a considerable kitchen furniture (batterie de cuisine). Her husband consents to leave her, as judicial guardian, part of the kitchen furniture found in the cellars, and which is therefore useless to the Princess; 2. Her state carriage, of which she can make use; 3. The diamonds, estimated at 231,000 francs, with the exception of such as the Courts may deem necessary for ber use.

M. Tripier contended, in reply, that even the total loss of the dowry could not exempt the hus

band

band from the obligation resulting from the mere fact of his marriage That the change of things had not affected his estates, but merely stripped him of the title of Sovereign Prince, and the honorary rights thereto attached. That the Princess was, in fact, his creditor to the amount of the dowry of one million, and not proprietrix of the hotel which her husband thought proper to purchase; that the interest on that dowry was due; that the sentence which should pronounce nullity of marriage would grant that interest ac ruing from the date of the claim; and that thus it was proper to grant her during the suit a part of that interest.

M. Bonnet, in the course of his reply, stated, that the Prince of Aremberg was absolutely compelled to vest the dowry upon this unproductive purchase: his wife threatened him with her supports (de ses apuis) if he resisted her wish.

M. Marchangy, the King's Advocate, noticed the remarkable phrases which the fortune of the Princess had assumed; lately her personal establishment was 240,000 francs of annual income; now her claim for 36,000 francs

was resisted. He thought she had a claim for maintenance while the other suit was going on, but as her situation under such circumstances might rather be considered as one of mourning than of luxury, he was disposed to restrict her claim to 1,500 francs per month.

The Court pronounced for a maintenance to be paid by the Prince of 1000 francs per month, on the ground that the Princess

was merely entitled to an aliment proportioned to the state of retreat in which a woman soliciting nullity of marriage should be placed; and ordered the Princess to give up the moveables claimed by her husband.

SEDUCTION.

Court of King's Bench, Wednesday, June 5.-Mary Gibberson v. E. L. Charlton, Esq.-The plaintiff is a widow, residing in Queenstreet, Brompton; the defendant is a person of property. The action was to recover damages for the seduction of the plaintiff's daughter.

The Attorney General, in opening the plaintiff's case, stated, that the defendant was not unknown in Westminster-hall, his name having formerly appeared to a transaction not very dissimi lar to the present: he had an ample fortune, residing principally upon his estate at Ludford, near Ludlow, and having filled the important office of high sheriff for the county of Worcester a short time ago. The charge against him was of a most flagrant nature, and the case disclosed a scene of profligacy and immorality scarcely equalled in the history of the courts where such injuries were redressed. The plaintiff lost her husband only a few months before the still more afflicting calamity which had given rise to this action. She resided in a a house at Brompton, where she and her husband had carried on trade for upwards of 20 years, and was assisted in the business and the household duties by a son, a lad, and three daughters, Mary, Hannah,

Hannah, and Charlotte; the first about 20, the second about 16, and the last not more than 15 years old. The jury would scarcely believe that the two last had become the victims of the seductive arts of the defendant and his friend Captain Seymour, of the guards: these two gentlemen had united their exertions in the most cold-blooded, and deliberate, and persevering attempts to gratify unbridled licentiousness; language was unequal to the expression of the baseness of the design, the cruelty of the execution, and the misery that had resulted from it. The two younger daughters of the plaintiff, Hannah and Charlotte, had been walking in Hydepark, when they were accosted by the defendant and Captain Seymour, who in vain endeavoured to learn where they lived; the gentlemen consequently followed them home, watched every oppor. tunity of speaking to the young females in the absence of their mother, their elder sister, or other advisers, writing the most passionate and pressing letters, professing that eternity of attachment which lasts only to the moment of gratification, and making those most flattering promises which are intended only to delude and betray. Having at length succeeded in overcoming the scruples of Miss Hannah Gibberson (for it was to her that the defendant paid his as siduous addresses, while Captain Seymour devoted himself to Charlotte), he prevailed upon her to quit her home, that she might proceed with him to Bath: and her sister consented to the same imprudent step with her admirer. In pursuance of the plot of these gentlemen, however, they did not

find it convenient to leave London on the day of the elopement, but promised until the next to lodge the young ladies at the house of a friend. The Jury would not be astonished to hear, that that house was the bagnio, called the Key, in Chandos-street, where the guilty design of the defendant was perpetrated. Within a day or two afterwards, Mr. Charlton excused himself on the ground of pressing business, which called him immediately into Worcestershire; and he and Captain Seymour, putting these two injured and unprotected females into a lodging in Seymour-place, there abandoned them, making them answerable to the woman of the house, where they were literally confined for some months, being unable to pay for the accommodation afforded. The learned counsel then read some of the correspondence of the defendant. He made many severe remarks upon their contents, and particularly those parts which recommended, in coarse terms, that Miss Gibberson should throw herself into the arms of some other man. He left the case to the jury to decide upon the question of damages.

Thomas Coleraine was the first witness. He was steward to the defendant, and with obvious reluctance proved the hand-writing of his master to the letters above given. He said, that he had managed the estate of Mr. Charlton for five or six years, ever since that gentleman was of age. The estate at Ludford was worth about 2,000l. a year, and there were 200 acres of park attached to the dwelling. Lucien Buonaparte had been in treaty to rent it.

Mrs. Mary Cooke said that she

lived in Sloane-street: she knew the plaintiff, her three daughters, and one son it appeared to her to be a well-regulated family. The husband of the plaintiff, before his death, carried on the business of a tailor.

::

Mrs. Susan Rogers and Mr. W. Taylor deposed to the same effect. Miss Hannah Gibberson said, that her mother had been a widow since last July: she, her two sisters, one older and one younger, with their brother, lived at home: the witness completed her 17th year last July, and her sister Charlotte was a year younger: last Christmas-day was the first time she saw the defendant; she was walking with her sister Charlotte in Hyde-park, when the defendant and Captain Seymour came up and asked where they lived the witness refused to tell, and the defendant and his friend followed them home. To prevent his coming next day, the witness and her sister promised to meet them in Bond-street; but the weather being wet, the defendant came to the house of the plaintiff; the servant, who opened the door, told the plaintiff they were out. The next time she saw the defendant was in St. James's-street; the witness's sisters, Mary and Charlotte, were with her: the defendant stopped Charlotte, and afterwards met them again in Bond-street, and as they were going to tea in Berkeley-street, he said he would escort them. The witness appointed to meet him at ten at night, when they came away, and he walked home with them; sometimes he walked with the witness alone. He told her he was leaving London for

Worcestershire, asked her to go with him, and promised he would take care of her for life: he added, that he had never seen a girl he liked better, at the same time disclosing his name and address at Ludford. The witness refused, but the defendant again pressed his proposal, saying that the witness should never want a shilling as long as he had one, and that after his death he would provide for her. He begged leave to write, but she said her brother opened all her letters, but not those of her elder sister, and the witness consented to read his letters under cover. He asked, when they met again, if the witness and her sisters ever went to the play; and Charlotte, who was with her, said they could if they had orders. This passed on the Monday; and on the Wednesday, the witness, walking with her sister Charlotte in Burlington-gardens, met the defendant again with Mr. Seymour, whom they had known six weeks before. The defendant again entreated the witness to leave her home, promising her every protection. Capt. Seymour obtained tickets for the play in the way home, which Charlotte accepted, but the witness rejected. Wednesday night the witness sent back the tickets to No. 51, Curzon-street, and on Friday morn ing the first letter was received; in consequence of which the witness met the defendant the next day in Burlington-gardens, having made some execuse to her mother: Charlotte went with her. The defendant and Mr. Seymour were both there, and the witness promised to meet him on Sunday

On

in the park; and they met accordingly. The defendant asked the witness to proceed with him to Bath, as Seymour, who was there, had persuaded Charlotte to go there with him: both the gentlemen promised to take care of the witness and Charlotte as long as they lived. The witness appointed to meet him next day in Burlington-gardens; but, being wet, they could not go. The defendant, in consequence, wrote another letter requesting the witness to leave her home with Charlotte the following day: they did so between 3 and 4 o'clock on Tuesday afternoon, and met the defendant and Seymour in Burlington-gardens. After some persuasion they both consented to go to Bath with the defendant and Seymour, but for that night it was agreed they were to sleep at the house of a friend. They accordingly walked to a house of ill fame in Chandos-street, and the witness there wrote a note to her sister to inform her that they were many miles distant with two gentlemen. Seymour went away to dine out, and the witness, her sister Charlotte, and Charlton, dined together at the Key, about nine at night: Seymour returned at about eleven o'clock, and they afterwards retired to bed in separate apartments, the witness with Charlton, and Charlotte with Seymour. Next morning they met at breakfast; the two gentlemen went out, and did not return until the evening: the defendant, and Mr. Seymour, who was in the guards, excused themselves from leaving town for Bath, as the latter could not obtain leave from the Duke of York to be absent for an

hour from duty. It was then proposed that the witness should go into the country with Charlton, while Charlotte remained in town with Capt. Seymour; but it was finally arranged that the witness and her sister should live together in Seymour-place, with the Captain, while Charlton went out of town, promising to return in a week or ten days. The witness wrote to Mr. Charlton, and in consequence received the two letters read by the Attorney-General, which, by consent, were directed to Mrs. Hamilton, the name the witness was to assume. They remained in the lodgings three or four months, but Mr. Seymour continued his visits to Charlotte only for three weeks. Charlton gave the witness 101. the first evening at the Key, and 51. more the next morning, both sums to buy linen for the journey to Bath; and 101. were sent when they were in Seymour-place. At the end of three or four months the witness and her sister returned to their mother, who was obliged to pay 171. to the woman of the house where they had lodged.

On her cross-examination by Mr. Topping, the witness said that the first time they were spoken to by the defendant, they had also been addressed by two other gentlemen in a tilbury, but the witness and her sister did not reply to them. When they went to Berkeley-street to drink tea, they took a walk round by St. James'sstreet, as they were too early. Captain Seymour had several times walked with her sister Charlotte before the witness became acquainted with the defendant. Before that tiine, the witness and

her