APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



^67 



band from the obligation result- 

 ing from the mere fact, of his mar- 

 riage : That the change of things 

 had not atfected his estates, but 

 merely stri-oped him of the title of 

 Sovereign Prince, and the hono- 

 rary rights thereto attached. That 

 the Pi incess was, in fact, his cre- 

 ditor to the amount of the dowry 

 of one million, and not proprie- 

 trix of tlie hotel which her hus- 

 band thoi gilt proper to purchase; 

 that tlie inteic^t on that, dowry 

 was due ; that the sentence which 

 should pronounce nullity of mar- 

 riage wouUl grant that interest 

 ac ruing from the date of the 

 claim ; and that thus it was pro- 

 per to grant her during the suit a 

 part of that interest. 



M. Bonnet, in the cour.-e of 

 his reply, stated, that the Prince 

 of Aremberg was absolutely com- 

 pelled to vest the dowry upon tliis 

 unproductive purchase : h^s wife 

 threatened him with her -uppoi ts 

 fde sea apuisj if lie resisted her 

 wish. 



M.'Marchangy, the King's Ad- 

 Tociite, noticed the remarkable 

 phrases wliicii the fortune of the 

 Princes? had assunied ; lately 

 her personal establihmcnt "as 

 '240.000 francs of a^ni.ual income ; 



' now lier claim for 36,000 fiancs 

 wa-^ resisted. He thought she 

 had a claim foi' maintenance w hile 

 the other suit vvas going on, but 

 Jis her situation umler suth cir- 

 cumstances miglit rather be con- 

 sidered as one of mourning than 

 of luxu) y, he was disposed to re- 

 ■^trct her claim to 1,500 francs 

 per mor)th. 



'Jhe Court pronounced for a 

 niiiintenance to be paid by the 

 Prince of loOO fiancs jier month, 



I on the ground that the Pi incess 



was merely entitled to an aliment 

 proportioned to the state of re- 

 treat ill which a woman solicit- 

 ing nullity of marnage should be 

 placed ; and ordered the Princess 

 to give up the moveables claimed 

 by her husband. 



SEDUCTIOK, 



Court of King's Bemh, H'ednes- 

 day, June 5. — Mary Gibherson v. 

 E. L. Chariton, Esq. — The plain- 

 titf" is a widow, residing in jQiieen- 

 street, Brompton ; the defendant 

 is a person of property. 'l"he ac- 

 tion was to recover' diunages for 

 the seduction of the plaintilf's 

 daughter. 



The Attorney General, in 

 opening the plaintiff's case, stated, 

 that the defendant uas not un- 

 known in \\'esiniiiister-hall, his 

 name having formerly a|)peared 

 to a transactiim not very dissmii- 

 lar to the present : he had an 

 am})le fortune, j esiding principal- 

 ly u|jon his estate at Ludford, 

 near Ludlow, and having filled 

 the important office of high sheriif 

 foi' the county of W'orcestei- a 

 short time ago. The charge a- 

 gaiiist him was of a mo^t flagrant 

 nature, and the case discioseil a 

 scene of pj'Oiiigacy and immoral- 

 ity scarcely equalled in the historj 

 of the coui'ts where such injuries 

 were redressed. The plaintiU'lost 

 her husband only a few months 

 before the still more afflicting ca- 

 lamity which had given rise to 

 this action. 8he resided in a 

 a house at Brompton, where she 

 and her husband had carried on 

 trade for upwards of 20 yeais, 

 and was assisted in the business 

 and the household duiies by a son, 

 a lad, and tin ee daughters, IMaiy, 



Hannah, 



