The first part of this sentence was carried out.  The new Claude took forcible possession of the mansion and estate of Chauvigny.  But it was found that Michael Feydy had disappeared, leaving his wife full power to act for him in his absence.  Anne Allard at once instituted a suit—­not against the possessor of the estates, whom she persistently refused to acknowledge—­but against Madame de Verre and her son Jacques, and petitioned that they might be compelled to put an end to the criminal prosecution which the soldier of the Gardes had instituted against her husband, to restore her to the possession and enjoyment of the mansion of Chauvigny, and the other property which belonged to her; and that, in the event of their failure to do so, they should be ordered to repay her all the expenses which she had incurred since her marriage; to grant her an annuity of two hundred livres per annum, according to the terms of her marriage-settlement; and further, to pay her 20,000 livres as damages.

At this stage another person appeared on the scene—­none other than Madlle de Dauple, whom the sham Claude had married in Normandy, and whom he had reported as dead.  She also had recourse to the legal tribunals, and demanded that Madame de Verre and her second son should pay her an annuity of 500 livres, and the arrears which were due to her since her abandonment by her husband, and 1500 livres for expenses incurred by Jacques Verre during his residence with her father and mother in Normandy.  The children of Anne Allard, moreover, brought a suit to establish their own legitimacy.

The Avocat-General was of opinion that the marriage contract between Michael Feydy and Mademoiselle de Dauple should be declared void, because there was culpable carelessness on the father’s part and on the girl’s part alike.  He thought the marriage of Michael Feydy and Anne Allard binding, because it had been contracted in good faith.  Jacques de Verre he absolved from all blame, and was of opinion that since Madame de Verre had signed the marriage-contract it was only just to make her pay something towards the support of Anne Allard and her children.  The Supreme Court did not altogether adopt these conclusions.  By a decree of the 31st of June 1656, it dismissed the appeals of Anne Allard and of Madeline de Dauple.  It declared the children of Michael Feydy and of Anne Allard legitimate, and adjudged to them and to their mother all the property acquired by their father, which had accrued to him by his division with Jacques de Verre, under the name of Claude de Verre, until the signature of the matrimonial agreement, and also the guarantee of the debts which Anne Allard had incurred conjointly with her husband.  Madame de Verre was also condemned to pay 2000 livres to Anne Allard, under the contract which had been signed.  Of Feydy himself nothing further is known.

THE BANBURY PEERAGE CASE.