nd while
he was negotiating there for the defendant's appearance at the
Vaudeville, he suddenly discovered that she was planning to go to
America without him. As a result, he was now claiming damages for
breach of contract. These he laid at the modest figure of 10,000
francs.

M. Blot-Lequesne, on behalf of Lola Montez, had a somewhat different
story to tell. The plaintiff himself, he declared, wanted to get out
of the contract and had deliberately disregarded its terms. His
client, he said, had authorised him to accept an engagement for her to
dance six times a week; but, in his anxiety to make additional profit
for himself, he had compelled her to dance six times a day. Apart from
this, he had "signally failed to respect her dignity as a woman, and
had invented ridiculous stories about her career." He had even done
worse, for, "without her knowledge or sanction, he had compiled and
distributed among the audiences where she appeared an utterly
preposterous biography of his employer." This, among other matters,
asserted that she had "lived and danced for eleven years in China and
Persia; and that she had been befriended by the dusky King of Nepaul,
as well as by numerous rajahs."

The concluding passage from this effort was read to the judge:

"Ten substantial volumes would be filled with the chronicle of the
eccentricities of Mlle Lola Montez, and much of them would still be
left unsaid. In the year 1847 a great English lord married her in
London. Unfortunately, they found themselves not in sympathy, and in
1850 she returned to the dreams of her spring-time. The Countess has
now completed one half of her projected tour. In November she leaves
France for America and--well--God only knows what will happen
then!"

[Illustration: _A "Belle of the Boulevards." Lola Montez in Paris_]

"As long," said counsel, "as the amiable Mlle Montez was treated by M.
Roux like a wild animal exhibited at a country fair, she merely
shrugged her shoulders in disgust. When, however, she saw how this
abominable pamphlet lifted the curtain from her private life, it was
another thing altogether. She expressed womanly indignation, and made
a spirited response."

"What was that?" enquired the judge, with interest.

"She said: 'It is lucky for you, sir, that my husband is not here to
protect me. If he were, he would certainly pull your nose!'"

As was inevitable, this expression of opinion shattered the _entente_,
and the manager return