Louis de la Pivardière (15 November 16611702), also known as Louis Dubouchet, was a French nobleman. His life is unremarkable save for the court case centered on him at the tail-end of the 17th century. His wife was on trial for his murder, though he reappeared during the case, with multiple people confirming his identity. It was an early example of the cause célèbres that would dominate the end of the 18th century, and it raised new questions about nobility and social status in Old Regime France.
Early life
Pivardière was born in the Berry on 15 November 1661 to Antoine de la Pivardière and his second wife, Marie de Berthoulat. He was not in a position to take advantage of his inherited nobility, and the first two decades of his life are marked by attempts to make a name for himself in the military. The reigning Louis XIV's territorial ambitions gave him many chances to do so. He served in the Franco-Dutch War and, several years later, fought in the Battle of Chiny. Regardless, he was unable to advance in the military. In 1687, he married Marguerite Chauvelin and became seigneur de Narbonne, the Chauvelin family estate. He and his wife had a daughter in 1688, but soon after the Nine Years War began and Pivardière again served in the military. The war went catastrophically for France and Pivardière yet again could not advance in the military, despite years of trying. By 1697, his ambition had nearly emptied his coffers.
Alleged murder and initial investigations
On 15 August 1697 Pivardière unexpectedly returned to Narbonne. Amidst rumors of his possible infidelity in Auxerre, he returned from his military duties with no escort and a lame horse. He and Chauvelin had a falling out and slept in separate rooms. By the next morning, Pivardière had disappeared and the front gate to the estate was open. During the ensuing weeks, when Pivardière did not reappear, rumors began to spread that Chauvelin had murdered her husband, and François Morin and Jean Bonnet, judges from Châtillon, launched a criminal investigation.
The investigation resulted in little hard evidence against Chauvelin, likely because of the nearly two-month delay in an actual crime scene investigation. Most notably, they had not discovered a body. All Morin and Bonnet had to show for their efforts were several transcripts and two maidservants, Catherine Lemoyne and Marguerite Mercier, in their custody as witnesses. Chauvelin and the prior Charost, an alleged conspirator in the murder, had disappeared as well. The following months resulted in Lemoyne and Mercier's testimony of the events of 15 August changing wildly, perhaps due to influence from Morin and Bonnet.
In January 1698, Pivardière allegedly reappeared, exonerating Chauvelin and Charost. Multiple witnesses confirmed his identity, but the momentum stalled when Lemoyne and Mercier asserted that the man was not Pivardière. The momentum took another drastic shift when the man claiming to be Pivardière disappeared again, and even more in February with the arrest and imprisonment of the prior Charost. In May, Chauvelin voluntarily imprisoned herself in a Parisian prison. Due to this as well as the swelling tide of publicity surrounding the case, the court venue shifted to the Parliament of Paris.
Trial at the Parlement of Paris
The first hearing in Paris of the Pivardière case was on 10 May 1698. The biggest question the defense had to answer was this: If Pivardière was still alive, why would he not come to Paris to exonerate his wife and the prior? Chauvelin and Charost's attorneys argued that it was because Pivardière feared an arrest for bigamy, a crime that was punishable by death in Old Regime France. They asserted that in 1695, Pivardière had taken the name Louis Dubouchet, moved to Auxerre, and married Marie-Elisabeth Pillard, the daughter of a deceased innkeeper. They further asserted that Pivardière had kept up fake correspondence with his first wife that gave the impression that he was still in the military. Upon his return to Narbonne on 15 August 1697, he discovered that Chauvelin suspected his infidelity and deemed it unwise to remain there.
Logically, according to Chauvelin and Charost's attorneys, Pivardière did not want to travel to Paris without being granted a safe conduct that would protect him from being arrested on bigamy charges. The safe conduct was not granted, however, and the man claiming to be Pivardière did not show up in court. On July 23, the Parlement of Paris rendered its verdict, which ordered a transferral of the witnesses, suspects (save for Chauvelin), and evidence to Chartres, where a new investigation would begin. The court also ordered the arrest of the man claiming to be Pivardière.