The Sun. — London, England, 1841-02-16 00:00:00

TRIAL OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE - JAMES THOMAS EARL oil; CARDIGAN, IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. (THIS DAY.) Tht trial of the Earl of Cardigan, about which so much interest has been excited for the last few weeks, commenced this morning in the House of Lords. Since Friday night, very extensive alterations have been made in the House, in order to afford all the additional accommodation possible. The side galleries have been extended the entire length of the House, and the end gal leryrusually appropriated to strangers, advanced several feet further into the body of the House, and tastefully fitted up for the Peeresses and other Ladies who were favoured with tickets by the Lord Chamberlain. Under this gallery, and immediately below the bar, another smaller one was erected, which afforded accommodation to about sixty persons. On the left of the Bar several benches were fitted up for the re porters for the public press, and we may take this opportunity of expressing our acknowledg ments to the Lord Chamberlain (Lord Wil loughby De Eresby) for the courtesy with which every arrangement, consistently with the limited `pace, was made for our accommodation. Immediately, in front of the throne a chair of state was provided for Lord Denman, who, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor from indis position, acted as Lord High Steward. At half-past nine the entrance to the House of Lords, termed the Peers' entrance, was opened, and in half an hour the body of the House was nearly filled by Peers Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Wynford, the Duke of Richmond, Lord Brougham, Lord Monteagle, and Viscount' Mel bourne were among the earliest arrivals. Shortly after ten o'clock the Attorney-General (with whom was Mr. Waddington) arrived and took his place at - the bar ; immediately on his arrival Lord Lyndhurst went up to the bar and was engaged in conversation with him for some minutes. The eldest sons of Peers were accom modated with scats behind the throne. Among the occupants of those seats, we observed Vis count Howick, the Hon. Thomas Denman, &c. &c. Strangers, the greater part of whom were la dies, continued to arrive in quick succession, and long before eleven o'clock every place was occu pied. The arrangements for affording ingress and egress were admirably planned and executed, and nawithstanding the crowded state of the House no difficulty whatever was experienced in passing to and fro. Shortly after his arrival the Attorney-General was joined by Mr. Wadding ton, the junior counsel for the prosecution. Sir William Follett, with Mr. Wrangham and Mr. Robinson, appeared as Counsel for the Earl of Cardigan. The Solicitor-General was absent, we under stand, from indisposition. The ...ridges, on their arrival, took their seats on the cross benches in front of the chair, with the exc3ption of Lord - Denman, the Lord High Steward, and ii tord Abinger, who took their seats among the Pars upon the Barons' Bench. The coup d'ceil of the House was extremely pic turesque and magnificent, the Peers being all robed, and those on whom the honour of knight hood, and other decorations, had been conferred, smearing the collars of their respective orders. TheCeers all wore cocked hats ; in order to in sure uniformity in this respect a notice had been posted in the lobbies of the House some days since, reminding the Peers that it was contra bonos mores to wear round hats with robes. The ladies were all in full dress. Lady Cardigan was one of the earliest arrivals, and took a seat on the right of the bar, immediately adjoining that oc cupied by the Noble Earl. A great number of the Corps Dlplomatique were in the side galleries in plain dress, and below the bar were several Members of the House of Commons. At a quarter before 11 o'clock the Lord►' Speaker (Lord Denman) having robed in his pri vate room, entered the House. A procession was formod in the usual manner, his Lordship being preceded by the Purse-bearer with the purse, the Sergeant with the mace, the Black Rod carrying the Lord High Stdward's staff, and Garter carrying his sceptre. Garter and Black Rod having taken their places at the Bar, the Lord Speaker proceeded to the Woolsack, where, being seated, prayers were read by the Bishop of Lichfield. The Clerk-Assistant of Parliament then pro , - ceeded to call over the Peers, beginning with the junior Baron, Lord Sydenham. Much amusement was excited in consequence Af several of the Peers who were present not an swering to their names when called, until re mindediu some Noble Lord near them. While the names were being called over, his Royal klighness the Duke of Cambridge entered the House. Among the absent Peers were—Lords Syden ham, De Fresne ' Lurgan, Wenlock, Stuart de Decies, Furnival, Beauvais, Methuen, Wrot tesley, De Manley, Carey, Lismore, Kintore, Lovat, Portman, Hatherton, Western, De Saumerez, , Cloncurry, Segrave, Mostyn, Pol timore, Panmure, Hamilton, Ludlow, Dun more, Chaworth, Sefton, Fingall, Stuart de Rothsay, Plunkett, Fife, Seaford, Fevers ham, Skelmersdale, Rosebery, Heytesbury, Tabley, Ranfurly, Wigan, Somerville, Gifford, Bexley, Downes, Delamere, Ravensworth,Driel, Maryborough, Glenlyon, Kingston, Clanbrassil, I'Vemyss, Minster, Prudhoe, Harris, Churchill, Rttss, Melville, Hill, Lynedoch, Hopetoun, Man nets, Crewe, Lauderdale, Ardrossan, Mont eagle, Erskine, Barham, Sandys, Ellenborough, Rivers, Abercorn, Loftus, Clanallan, Farnham, Carberry, Dunsany, Fitzgibbon, Wellesley, Rolle, Salterton, Stuart of Chapel, Stuart, Thur low , Douglas, Dorchester, Tyrone, Montague, Shil%orne, Powis, Rodney, Dynevor, Foley, Hawkd, Lovell and Holland, Sondes, Bruce, Monson, Boyle, Ray, Sinclair, Grey, Forbes, Howland, Clifford, Stafford, Teynham, Dormer, Arundel, Petre, Howard de Walden, Seaton de Peltroe,Vernon, Dacre, De Roos, Paget. Bishops --Ely, Chichester, St. David's. Viscounts—Pen sonby, Cottenham, Canning, Cumberland, Clan carty, Hutchinson, A'Court, Exmouth, Lakc, Luton, Sidmouth, Melville, St. Vincent, De Vesci, Maynard, Bolingbroke, Strathallen, Ar buthnot. Earls—Dudley, Yarborough, Ripon, Camperdown, Burlington, Munster, Dunravon, Straidbroke, Glengall, St. German's„ Cath cart, Harewood, Harrowby, ROnsdale, Gre , Rosse, Gosford, Powys, Craven, 0' lb Belmore, Charleville, Liverpool, Mans ife tel , Fortescue, Talbot, Abergavenny, Spencer, Ilehcster, Cornwallis, Guildford, Egreniont, Fitz'tvilliam, Buckingham, Portsmouth, Had dington, Waldegrave, Graham, Harborough, Stafford, Dartmouth, Orkney, Arden, Elgin, Al bemarle, Suffolk, Pembroke. Marquises--Brtad albane, Bristol, Aylesbury, Hastings, H e rtford, Townsend, Tweeddale, Winchester. Dukes— Sutherland, Wellington, Newcastle,, Manchester Portland., Brandon, Rutland, Devonshire, Leeds , St. Alban's, Grafton, Norfik, and his Royal ILighuess the Duke of C l 7.lnberla• nd, who w as the last Peer called. -'' The Clerks of s...ne Crown i n Ch ancery and in the Queen's then jointly made three reve- Ileum's, and the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, on his knee, delivered the Commission to the .Lord Speaker, who gave it to the Clerk of the Crown in Ills Queen's Bench to read; both Clerks then retired with like reverences to the table. The Sergeant-at-Arms then made proclamation, and the Lord Speaker informed the Peers that her Majesty's Commission was about to be read, and directed that all persons should rise and be uncovered while the Commission was reading. The Commission appointing Lord Denman as Lord'High Steward was then read, and Garter and Black Rod having made their reverences, proceeded to the woolsack and took their places on the right of the Lord High Steward, and both holding the stair presented it on their knees to his, Grace. His Grace then rose, and having made reve rence to the Throne, took his seat in the Chair of state provided for him on the uppermost step ut tine of the Throne, proclamation was then inaile for silence ; when the Queen's Writ of 'Certiorari to remove the Indictment with the re turn thereof, and the record of the Indictment, was then read by the Clerk of the Crown in the Queen's Bench. The Lord High Steward then directed the Sergeant -at-Arms to make proclamation for the Yeoman Usher to bring the Prisoner to the Bar. The Earl of Cardigan then entered the House, and advanced to the Bar, accompanied by the Yeoman Usher. Ile made three reverences, one to his Grace the Lord High Steward, a n d one to the Peers on either side, who returned the sa lute. The ceremonial of kneeling was dis pensed with. The Noble Earl wore a dress coat, dark trousers, and red waistcoat. On first presenting himself at the Bar, his Lordship looked somewhat pale and agitated, but soo#recovered his self-possession. He was then conducted within the Bar, AVhere, he remained stanling while the Lord High Steward, having directed proclamation to be made for silence, acquainted. the prisoner with the nature of the charge against him. The, prisoner was then arraigned in the usual form, for firing at Harvey Garnet Phipps Tucket, on ttel2th of September last, Withl'intent to kill and murder him. The second count charged him with firing at the said Harvey Garnet Phipps Tucket with intent to maim and disable him; and the third count varied the charge—with in tent to do him some grievous bodily harm. The Clerk then asked, " How say you, James Thomas, Earl of Cardigan, are you guilty or not?" The Earl of CARDIGAN, in a firm voice, re plied. " Not guilty, my Lord." The Clerk—" How will you be tried, my Lord?" The Earl of CARDIGAN—" BS , - my Peers." The Noble prisoner then took his seat on a stool within the bar, and his Grace the Lord High Steward removed to the table, preceded by Garter, Black Rod, and the Purse-bearer, as be fore, and his Grace being seated, Black Rod took his seat on a stool at a corner of the table, on his Grace's right hand, holding the staff, Garter on a stool on Black Rod's right, and the Sergeant at the lower end of the table on the same side. Mr. WADDINGTON then opened the pleadings, stating the nature of the offence as set out in the indictment, and added that the Noble prisoner had, for his trial, put himself upon their Lord ships, his Peers. The ATTORNET-GRNERAL—My Lords, I have the honour to attend you as Attorney-General for her Majesty to lay before you the circum stances of this case, without any object or wish except that I may humbly assist your Lordships in coming to a right conclusion upon it, accord ing to its merits. My Lords, an indictment has been found against a Peer of the realm by the Grand Jury of the country, charging him with a felony, the punishment of which is transportation or imprisonment. My Lords, that indictment has been removed before your Lordships at the request of the Noble prisoner, most properly made, for an inferior Court had no jurisdiction to try him. My Lords, upon a charge which upon the face of it so serious, it would not have been satisfactory if it had gone off without an inquiry ; and, my Lords, the police man who is upon this case bound over to prose cute, had fulfilled the conditions of his recogni zances by appearing at the Central Criminal Court and preferring an indictment. My Lords, in the course of this trial it is possible that ques tions of great magnitude upon the construction of Acts of Parliament respecting the privileges of the Peerage may arise, which it is of'great importance to this House, to the Crown, and to the community, should be deliberately discussed. My Lords, according to all the precedents that can be found, wherever there' has been a Peer tried in Parliament the prosecution has been conducted by the law officers of the Crown. Fortunately, my Lords; we have no living me mory upon this subject. It is now sixty-font years since any proceeding of this sort has taken place; and I am rejoiced to think, my Lords, that the charge against the Noble Prisoner at the bar does not imply any degree of moral turpitude, and that if he should he found guilty the conviction will reflect no discredit upon the illustrious order to which lie belongs. But it seems to me that he clearly has been guilty of a breach of the statute law of the realm, which those in all Courts of Justice are'bound to re spect and enforce. Your Lordships are not sitting here as a Court of Honour, or a branch of the Legislature. You are sitting as a Court bound by the rules of law, and under a sanction as sacred as that of an oath. My Lords, the indictment against the Earl of Cardigan is framed on an Act of Parliament which was passed in the first year of the reign of her present Majesty Queen Victoria. It char g es the Noble Defendant with having fired a shot at Captain Harvey Tuckett, with several intents .which are stated in the indict ment. I think it but a duty 'that I owe to the accused on this occasion, to remind your Lordships briefly of the state of the law on this subject. By the common law of England when death did not ensue, no personal violence, however great, amounted to more than a misdemeanor, and if the person wounded did not die within a year and a day then no felony had been committed. My Lords, the first Act of Parliament which created it a felony, where death did not ensue, was the sth of Henry IV., chap. 5, whereby the cutting a person so as to injure him, although death did not ensue, was made felony, with benefit of clergy. 'By the Coventry Act, passed in the 22d and 23d of Charles 11., any person lying in wait for, and wounding any person, with intent to maim or disfigure him, was guilty, of felony, without bene fit of clergy. Under both of these Acts your Lordships will perceive that no offence was com mitted unless a wound was inflicted. But by the Act of the 9th of George 1., com monly called the ," Black Act," the at tempt, even when no wound was given, was made felony. By that Act it was enacted that if any person should wilfully and maliciously shoot at any person in a dwelling house or other place, he should be considered guilty of felony without benefit of clergy. But I think it my duty in fairness to the Noble Prisoner, to remind your Lordships that unless the case was such that if death ensued, it would be a case of murder, no offence had been committed within the statute. My Lords, the law in this case has been very clearly laid down, in the case of " The King against Gastineau," which is reported in the Ist vol. of Leach's Crown Cases, p. 417. In that case the law is thus stated—the offence charged in the indictment is de scribed in this statute in few and clear words—it is enacted, " that if any per son shall wilfully and maliciously shoot at any person in a dwelling-house or other place, he shall be guilty of felony withoutbenefit of clergy." The words " maliciously" and " wil fully" are made to egpstitute the essence of the crime. No act of shooting is within the meaning of the statute, unless accompanied by circumstances which would have made the crime murder if death had ensued in consequence of such act. The proposition is clearly laid down, but there must be clearly the intention of malice, and in no species of homicide can malice be argued except in murder; and therefore no accidental shooting, nor any shooting committed in the transport of passion, in which case, if death ensues, the crime is manslaughter only within the meaning of this statute. My Lords, things continued in this posi tion until the Act of the 43d Geo. 111., commonly called Lord Ellenborough's Act. • This Act did not repeal the Black Act, but extended it to many cases which were not before felony. My Lords, by that Act it was enacted, that if any person should maliciously shoot at any person with intent to murder him, or with intent to maim, disfigure, or disable him, or to do him some grievous bodily harm, such person should be adjudged guilty of felony. But, my Lords, in this Act there is an express provision, that if supposing death had ensued, it would not atriount to murder, then the person indicted skall be acquitted. My Lords, you will observe that'by this Act of Parliament it is made a capi tal offence to, shoot at a person with intent to murder him, or to maim, or disfigure, or disable hini, or to do shim some grievous bodily harm; bat the case is within the meaning of the sta tute, only supposing that if death ensued the case would amount to murder. The next Act On this subjed is the Act of the 9th George IV. cap. 31, *licit. is generally called Lord Lansdowne's t t, because the Marquis of Lans dOwne was at at time Secretary of State for the Home DepartMent, and he had introduced that Act into Parliament. It consolidates and amends the statutes relating to offences against the per son ; it repeals the Black Act and Lord Ellen borough's Act; but it contains similar provisions to Lord Ellenborough's Act. By the 10th sec tion it is enacted, " that if any person shall ma liciously shoot at any other person with intent to murder him, he shall suffer death as a felon." By the 12th section it is enacted ' " that if he - shall sho o t a t any person with evous d in o te h n i t m to s m om ai e i4 iri disfigure,bo(il3, o i rdis i a m b r i n e l him, m s o h . a t l o l suffer death."lT:lt contains, however, he the same provisions as r Lord Ellenborough's Act, that, supposing death ensued in consequence, if the crime would nbt amount to murder, then the person should -be acquitted under this Act. But it was still a eapital offence to shoot at any person with intent to maim, disfigure or disable him, or to do Um some grievous bodily harm. My Lords, tinfigs remained on this footing until the Act !'Avas passed on which this in dictment is fdinided. This Act received the Royal Assent on the 17th of July, 1 8 37. It is the Act Ist Victori a, chap. 85, and is en titled "Ati Act:to Amend the Laws Relating to Offences against the Person." It recites the Act 9 Geo. IV., chap. 21, as relating to these of fences, and repeals the Act 9th George second section enacts that if any person shall cut, stab, or woniid any person, or in any manner inflict any injury on any person dangerous to life, with intent to commit murder, such person shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and suffer death. Therefore the shooting at any person, and in flicting on such person a wound dangerous to life a capital offence; but the shooting at any person where no wound is inflicted is no longer a capital offence, but remains still a felony. By the 3d section it is enacted that whoever shall' shO6tat any person, or shall draw the trigger of any lOaded firearms, with intent thereby to mur der such person, the such person so shooting or so drawing the trigger, even if no injury shall be inflicted, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall be liabi k 10 transportation for life or for a term not less iliab fifteen years . , or to imprison ment for a terinot liss than three years. By the 4th section it is enacted that whosoever shall shoot at any person, with intent to maim or dis figure or disable him, or to do him some grievous bodily harm, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and be liable to the same punishment as is enacted in the 3d section. This Act contains no provision similar to Lord Ellenborough's Act or to the Act of 9th Geo. IV., and this is a circum stance most material for your Lordships to bear in mind in deliberating on the judgment you may have to come to on the third and fourth • counts of the indictment. I am happy to say the indictment contains no count on the capital charge. A wound was inflicted, but the prosecutor hasvery properly restricted the charge to firing, without stating that any injury h as been inflicted. The first count charges the shooting as having taken place with intent to murder. The second count charges the same act with intent to maim and disable; and the third count with intent to do some grievous bodily harm. It will be for your Lordships to say whether the facts which I shall lay before you, and what I am instructed will prove clearly the act of shooting, are clearly made out; and if so, whether the crime charged in the indictment is fully established. My Lords, the substance of the evidence is this, that upon the 12th day of September last the Earl of Cardigan fought a duel with pistols, on Wimbledon Common, with Capt. Harvey Tuc kett, and wounded him at the second exchange of shots. My Lords, it will appear before your Lordships, that about five o'clock in the afternoon of that day two carriages were seen to come in opposite directions in the neighbourhood of Wimbledon Common, and a party alighted from each. It was evident to those who observedwhat was taking place that a duel *as in contemplation. They came to a part of Wimbledon Common be tween the road that leads by Lord Spencer's park and the windmill standing on the top of the Common. The seconds first came upon the ground, and made the usual preparations. The principals, the Earl of Cardigan and Captain Tuckett, were then placed at a distance of about 12 yards from each other ; they exchanged shots without effect; they again fired, and Captain Tuckett was wounded. Mr. Daun, who occupies the mill to which I have referred, and his son, together with Sir James Anderson, a surgeon, who had been standing close by, came up almost immediately. The wound was examined—it bled copiously, but most fortunately—and no one, I believe, rejoiced at that more than the Earl of Cardigan—it was not of . a dangerous nature. The parties were all removed by the miller (who was a constable, and took them into custody) to the nearest station. The wound was there further exa mined, and Sir James Anderson pressed that he should be at liberty to take Captain Tuckett to his house in London, which was. immediately agreed to upon his promising to appear when re covered from the effects of the wound before the Magistrates. The miller took the Earl of Cardi gan and his second, Captain Douglas, into cus tody. Captain Douglas was the second of the Earl of Cardigan, and Captain Wainwright, the second of Captain Harvey Tuckett. The Earl of Cardigan had still a pistol in his hand when the miller apprehended him. There were two cases of pistols on the ground—one with the crest of the Earl of Cardigan upon it, which he claimed as being his property. The other parties were conducted before the Magistrates at Wandsworth, and upon that occasion the Earl of Cardigan made use of these words—" I have fought a duel, and hit my man—l believe not seriously." He . then said, pointing to Captain Douglas, " This gentleman is also a prisoner, and my second." He was asked if the person he had hit was Cap tain Reynolds, to which he replied, " Do you think I would condescend to fight with one of my own officers?" He was compelled by the Magistrates to enter into recog nizances to appear when called for, which he did from time to time, and at last the matter was sent to the Central Criminal' Court. My Lords, the witnesses I shall bring before you are the miller, his wife, and his son, with a police man of the name of Dunning, who was at the sta tion, and will speak to the declarations of Lord Cardigan, and what there took place. I shall offer no evidence, and can offer no evi dence before your Lordships, respecting the Origin of the quarrel. Captain "Douglas is to take his trial. He, as your lordships will observe, is jointly indicted with the Earl of Cardigan. A bill of indictment was preferred against Captain Tuckett and Captain Wainwright, it was thrown out by the Grand Jury; but they, as your Lordships well know, are still liable to be tried, and it would not be decorous that I should summon them before your Lordships to give evidence which might afterwards be turned against themselves, and prove that they were guilty of a felony. I will call before your Lord ships Sir James Anderson, who has hitherto spoken freely upon the subject, and I suppose will now make no objection to state to your Lordships all that fell within his ob servation. Now, my Lords, upon these facts it will be for your Lordships to say whether all the counts of the indictment are not fully proved and supported. With regard to the first count, it is painful to use the language which the first count necessarily employs, but it will be for your Lordships to say whether, in point of law, the Earl • of Cardigan did not shoot at Captain Tuckett, with intent to commit that crime which is there mentioned. My Lords, I at once acquit the Earl of Cardigan of anything unfair in the conduct of the duel. Something has been said about his Lordship's pistols having rifle barrels, and those of Capt. Tuckett not having rifle barrels. My Lords, however that may have been, I have the most firm con viction that nothing but what was fair and ho nourable was intended, and that the Earl of Car digan most probably imagined that when he car ried those pistols to the field with him, that one of them would be directed against his own person. Nor do I suppose, my Lords, that there was any grudge, any personal enmity, any rancour or malignity whatever, when his Lord ship gave or received the invitation. I am will ing to believe his only object was to preserve his reputation, and to maintain his station in society as an officer and a gentleman. His Lordship is in the a. Day—he is a Lieutenant-Colonel of the 11th Hussars; and I have no doubt that he, upon this occasion, only complied with what he considered necessary to be done, according to the usages of society. But, my Lords, under those ' circumstances and though, if death had ensued, , it would havebeen considered a great calamity, although not morally a great crime, because high names have excused and evenslefended duels, yet your Lordships must consider by the law of Eng land—my Lords—by the law of England, there can be no doubt that the parties who meet delibe rately to fight a duel, if death ensues, are guilty of the crime of murder. My Lords, it will be my duty to state to your Lordships a few of the leading authorities upon the subject. I will mention the four highest authorities known to the law of England. Hale, Hawkins, Foster, and Black stone. In Hale's Pleas of the. Crown, vol. 1 page 463, it is thus laid down—" If A and B fall sud denly out and they presently agree to fight in the field, and run and fetch their weapons and then go into the field and fight, and A kills B, this is not murder but homicide, for it is but a continuance of the sudden falling out, and the blood was never cooled. But if there were deliberation, as that they meet the next day,:nay, though it were the same day, if there were .such a competent distance of time, that in common presumption they had time for delibe ration, then it is murder." In the Ist vol. of Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, chap. 13, sec. 13, it is thus stated :—" It seems agreed that when ever two persons in cool blood meet and fight on a preceding quarrel, and one of them is killed, the other is guilty of murder, and cannothelp himself by alleging that he was just struck by the de ceased, or that he had even declined to meet Min, or was prevailed upon to do it by his own im portunity ; or that his intent was only to vin dicate his reputation, or that he meant not to' kill, but only to disarm his adversary; for since he deliberately engaged in an act highly un lawful, and in defiance of the laws, he must at his peril, abide the consequences thereof. And from hence it clearly follows, that if two persons quarrel over night and agree to fight the next day, or quarrel in the' morning, and agree to fight in the afternoon, or such a considerable time after as in common pretendment it must be presumed the blood was cold, and then fight, and one kill the other, he is guilty of murder; and wherever it appears from the whole circum stances of the case that he who kills another for a sudden quarrel was master of his temper at the time, he is guilty of murder, as if, after the quarrel, he fell into other discourse, and talked calmly thereon, or if he had so much considera tion as to say the place in which the quarrel hap pened was not convenient for fighting, or that if he fought there he would have a disadvantage, by reason of the length of his shoes." This re fers to the case of Lord Morley, where, though it was only held to be manslaughter, it was strongly pressed to show it was offence of a deeper die. The Learned Gentleman then quoted Sir M. Foster's description of homicide, chap. 5, sec. 4, in which it is laid down that deliberate duelling, if is, in the eyes of the law, murder ; for death en sar s eueg'enerally founded in deep revenge, and though the p a rty should . have been drawn ictilio into the duel not front criminal motives, but merely oil the pui of what was falsely called honour, that will not be an excuse for him fsr deliberately seeking the blood of another in a private quarrel, acting in defiance of all laws, human and Divine, whatever his motives may be. Itwould, however, be but manslaughter if the parties did not act in cold blood, or if it could be concluded that their judgment had no control over the first transport of passion, before they engaged. Sir William Blackstone, my Lords, in the 4th volume of his Commentaries, thus writes—" This takes in cases of deliberate duel ings, when both parties met avowedly with in tent to murder." My Lords, he is then qualify ing cases which he considers to be murder ; and he says that in all cases " When the parties meet, it is to be considered as murder, thinking it their duty as gentlemen, and claiming it as their right to wanton with their own lives, and those of their fellow-creatures, without any warrant or authority from any power either Di vine or human, but in direct contradiction both to the law of God and man. And, therefore, the law has justly fixed the crime and punish inent of murder on them and on the second also." My Lords, those are the highest authori ties known to the law of England, and those authorities have been uniformly followed by English Judges. It was so in the case of in the Central Criminal Court, and it was so in the case of Sir John Jefcott, which was tried before Mr. Justice I'at 'teson, one of the most learned Judges on the Western Circuit; and on that occasion his Lord ship laid down the same law in the most precise and authoritative terms. Such being the defini tion of murder to be found in all our books of authority, and such being the definition con stantly given of it on the Bench in the cases of those who stood for trial, are not your Lordships to suppose that the Legislature makes use of the word murder in the same sense, and that when we find in the oth George IV., and in this Act of the Ist Victoria, the expres sions " with intent to murder," that that means with intent to do that which, if accomplished, amounted, in point of law, to the crime of mur deli? The Legislature when they passed those Acts must be taken—your Lordships must be taken—as giving a sanction to those—you must be taken to have well known what was the legal definition of murder, and to have ustd that expression, in these judicial Acts, in its legal sense. Then, my Lords, how ever painful the consideration may be, does it not necessarily follow that the first count of this indictment is completely proved ? The cir cumstances, my Lords, clearly show that the earl of Cardigan and Captain Tuckett met by sppointment. Lord Cardigan—the ground being prepared—twice fired loaded pistol's, taking de liberate aim, and hitting and wounding his anta gonist. He must be supposed to have intended that which he did. If unfortunately death had ensued, would this have been a case of murder? My Lords, the only supposition by which it could be reduced to manslaughter would be that the Earl of Cardigan and Captain Tuckett casually met on Wimbledon Common; that they suddenly quarrelled, and that while their blood was hot they fought. -But your Lordships can hardly strain the facts so far as to suppose that this was a casual meeting while each was sup plied with seconds—while each had a brace of pis tols,and allwas conducted according to the forms and solemnities observed when deliberate duels take place. Then, my Lords, with regard to the second and third counts of the indictment, I know not what defence can possibly be suggested, be cause even if there had beers this casual meeting, contrary to all probability and all the circum stances of the case—if it would only, had death ensued, amount to the crime of manslaughter— would be no defence for, the second and third counts of the indictment. MY Lords, I pre sume to say so on the authority of a case which came before the fifteen Judges of England, _and which was decided on—two most learned Judges doubting on that occasion, not dissenting. Those two JudgeS were his Grace the Lord High 'Steward, and Mr.. Justice Little dale. It Would not now become me to express the opinion -which I entertain of the learning of his Grace before your Lordships; but of Mr. Jus tice Littledale I will say, that there never was a more learned or a more acute Jude. The Bar of England have lately bid him adieu, aid I know not whether we shall ever see a more learned Judge on the Bench. I would therefore ascribe the greatest weight to doubts even in duel quarrels. But the other thirteen Judges entertained no doubts, arid they came to the conclusion, on the 4th section of the Act of Parliament, - that it was not necessary for conviction, that if death had ensued the crime would amount to murder. The case to which. I refer is to be found in the second volume of Mudie's -" Crown Cases of Reserve," vol. 2; page 40. The case was tried before .I . llk.- Baron Parke,' on the Norfolk Spring Cir cuit in 1838. It is entitled " anonymous." The name of the prisoner is not given, but the report seems very authentic, and it seems to be in the words of the case submitted by the .. Learned Judges for the opinion of their brethren. It will be found, my Lords, expressly in point. The opinion of the Judges was requested by Mr. Baron Parke and his colleague on two questions which arose on the Northern Circuit. It is the first only that is material here. The case recited the 9th George IV., and the Ist Victoria, andpointecl out the circumstances that the Act of Queen Victo ria, did not contain that same proviso with Lord Ellenborough's Act and Lord Lansdowne's Act. It submitted this question for the opinion of the Judges. Is it any defence to an indictment for wounding with intent to maim, that if death had ensued that offence would not be mur der, but manslaughter ? Now, your Lord ships will . observe that shooting at with in tent to maim or disable, and stabbing with intent to maim or disable, are in the same category, are subject to the same punish ment, and must be attended with the same results. This, therefore, my Lords, would have the same authority as if the question submitted by Mr. Baron Parke had been whether on an indictment for shooting at with intent to disable, it would be a defence to show that if death had ensued, the crime would not have amounted to murder. The arguments are not given, but this is the decision of the Judges—" At a meeting of the Judges in Easter Term, 1838, they all thought it to be now no defence to such indict ment, that if defith had ensued the offence would not have amounted to murder, but to man slaughter, except Lord Denman, the Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Littledale, who doubted." They did not dissent, they only doubted. The other thirteen Judges seemed clearly to hold that that this would not amount to any defence; and I humbly apprehend they probably reasoned m this manner, that the in tention of the Legislature being to mitigate the penal code, and make those offences which be fore were capital now only punishable with trans- portation, the quality of the offence was not to be precisely the same; and that if there were maiming or disabling, or grievous bodily harm, done when there was a sudden quarrel in the heat. of the blood without premeditation, that still it should not be an offence within the section of this Act of Parliament, which gave a discretionary power to the Court before which the offence is tried either to transport for fifteen yearS, or to imprison for a single - hour. There fore those learned Judges, seeing the discre tionary power given—seeing the omission of a proviso—seeing it was no longer a capital offence, came . to the conclusion that the. offence was committed, although if death had ensued the crime would not have amounted to murder. Now, my Lords, in that case I know not what defence can possibly be at, tempted with regard to the second and third counts of the indictment. My Lords, I rejoice to con sider that the Noble Prisoner will have an advan tage that was not enjoyed by any Peer who has ever been tried at your Lordships' bar —an advantage which ' was not enjoyd by Lord Lovat, or Lord BTr or Lord Ferrers, or th e Duchess of Kingston. He will have the advantage of having mY most able, and ingenious, an d honoura ble Friend, Sit Wil liam Follett, i n hi s b e half, on the facts and me rits of the case. This arises, my Lord s , from - the most admirabl e l a w your Lordships, passed a few years ago, by which in an cases p arties accused have the advantage of addressing , on the facts, the tribunal which i s t o d e t er mine on the case. But my Lords, n o t w i t h s t an ding t he learning, and ability, and ze a l o f my Learned Friend Sir W. Follett, I kno w not how he . can at, all per suade, your Lordships to an acquittal on any one count of the indictment. He will not ask your Lordships, and he would ask y ou in vain, to forget the laws by w hich.yots are bound. My Lords, Captain Douglas having stood on his trial before an inferior tribunal, .that trial had been postponed by the Judges On the express grounds that the same case should-first be tried by the highest criminal Court known in the empire. You, my Lords, are to lay down the law by which all inferior Courts are to be, guided. I would beg leave on this subject to read the words made use of at this bar by one of the most distinguished of my predecessors, who afterwards for many year s p res id e d with great dignity on the. Woolsack in your Lordships' house. I mean Lord. Thurl ovv ; who, when addressing the House of Lord s i n the case of the Duchess of Kingston, 'made ' use of these e x p ression s --" I do desire to impress _this _ s i p on y our 'Lordships - as an!: u niversal hiassim-- - ; that no more dangerous idea can creep into the mind of a Judge than the imagination that he is wiser than the law. I confine this to. no Judge, what ever his denomination, but extend it to all ; and speaking at the bar of the highest Court of Jus tice, I make sure of your Lordships' approba tion, when I comprise even your Lordships. It is a grievous example to other Judges. If your Lordships assume this power of sitting in judg menton the law, why not the King's Justices? Why not the Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer ? If they do so, why not the Quarter Sessions ? Ingenious men may strain the law very far, but to pervert it, and to new model it, the genius of our Constitution says the Judges have no such authority, nor shall presume to exercise it." My Lords, I conclude with respectfully expressing my conviction that your Lordships' judgment in this case, whatever it may be, will be accord ing to law and the justice of the case, and that your Lordships will preserve that high reputation in the exercise of your judicial func tions, which has been so long enjoyed by your Lordships' ancestors. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then bowed to their Lordships, and was about to withdraw, when he again turned to the House and said — Will your Lordships allow me to mention that on account of the sudden illness of my Learned Friend (the Solicitor-General) he is deprived of the honour of attending to-day before your Lordships. Thomas Hunt Dann was then called and ex amined by Mr. Waddington. Are you a miller living at Wimbledon ?—Yes, Sir. Is your mill close to Wimbledon Common ? It is on the Common. Are you a constable for the parish of Wimble don ?—Yes, Sir. Were you at your mill in the afternOon of Saturday the 12th of September ?—Yes, Sir. Do you remember, about five o'clock, that afternoon a gentleman's carriage driving down the Common ?—This question was objected to by the opposite Counsel as a leading question. Did you observe anything before dark that day ?—I saw a carriage drive opposite to Mr. James Currie's, and there stop. Where did that carriage drive to ?—lt stopped there. On the Common, or the road adjoining the Common ?—lt was on the Common. Is that on the edge of the Common it stopped? —Yes, Sir. Was that the only carriage you saw 7—No, Sir. Tell us what other you saw.—l saw one on the place of Earl Spencer, and one on the road that leads from Wandsworth to Wimbledon. Did you see it moving or stopping saw it first stopping. Did you see any one get out of either of those carriages?—l am not certain I did. - Did you see any person on the Common shortly after saw two persons come from the first carriage, and two from the second. What did you nee them do ?—I saw them go into Wimbledon parish, and one into Wands worth ; and from the other carriage, one went intn Putney, and the other into Wandsworth. Is part of the Common in Wimbledon and part in Putney ?—Yes; part is in Putney. Look at his Lordship at the bar. Is that one of the genthmen?—li is, Sir. Did you see anything more at that time?— At that time I suspected that it was a duel. Don't tell us what you suspected. Did you see anything more? Did you give any 'directions to your wife? Don't tell us what they were. I did. What, then, did you do ? Were you after wards called by your wife ?—Yes.. What, then, did you do ?—I went in-doors and got my staff, and went to the gate. What did you see when you came to the gate ? —I saw two gentlemen standing about twelve yards apart, presenting a pistol at each other, and at that moment they fired at each other. Was his Lordship (the Earl of Cardigan) one of those gentlemen ?—He was. Did you hear the reports of two pistols 2-1 did, Sir. Did you see any other gentlemen at the same time ?—T saw one previous to that standing under Mr. Currie's hedge. At the time the pistols went off did you see any other gentlemen ?—I saw there were four gentlemen nearly together at the right hand of the gentlemen who fired. Had Lord Cardigan his face or his back to you ?—His face. Where was the other gentleman who fired standing ?—Tle was standing nearer to me, with his back to me. State what took place after they had fired ? I then made the best of my way to the spot, and a second shot took place when 1 was about fifteen yards to the left. From the gentlemen who fired do you mean? Yes, Sir. How far was the gate of your house from the spot where the gentlemen stood ?—Two hundred and twenty-two yards. And 'you saw them in the act of getting fresh pistols ?—I saw them getting fresh ptstols. How was that ?—I do not know—being in the act of running I did not see exactly what passed. Who gava them ?—The two gentlemen who were acting as seconds. Were those the two gentlemen you spoke of as standing on - the right ?—Yes. Did you see whether Lord Cardigan moved from his place ?—Yes, he advanced forwards and then drew back again. By advancing forwards do you mean that he went towards the gentleman who was standing opposite to him or towards the two gentlemen ? Towards the ,seconds. And then drew back to his original position?— Yes. You tell us you saw the pistols fired the second time I—Yes. Did you see whether any of them took effect ? —I thought Captain Tuckett—l did not know him then—but I thought the gentleman, who I now know to be him, was wounded. Did you See what the gentleman whom. you thought was wounded did with his pistol ?—No, Sir, You did not see whether he held it in his hand. or whether it dropped ?—I don't know. I beg your pardon, I may have misunderstood you. Did you see whether the other gentleman, the gentleman whom you thought was wounded, did anything with his pistol when the second shot was fired?—l went up and took a pistol from Lord Cardigan's hand. Did you go up to the gentleman ?—I did. Sir WM. FOLLETT—YOU have not got an an swer to your question. Mr. WADDINGTON—Did you see whether the other gentleman who fired at Lord Cardigan did anything with his pistol b—l cannot say what be came of it. I did not see. You then went up to the parties ?—Yes. What did you do when you got up to them ?—I went up 'to the gentleman whose face was towards me, and putting my hand upon his shoulder, said, " You must con sider yourself in my custody for a breach of the peace, in the name of our Sovereign Lady the Queen." Was it to his Lordship you said so ?—lt was. Had he a pistol in his - hand at that time ? lie had. What became of it ?—I took it from his Lord ship's hand. Did you keep it in your possessian ?—I was requested to allow them to be packed up in their respective cases. I did so, and put them into two cases. By whom were you desired to do so ?—By one of the gentlemen. You took possession of them when in the cases? —I did. How many pistols were there I—Four, two cases, and two in each case. And you took possession of the whole of them ?—I did. _ . Did a fifth gentleman come up ?—There was a fifth gentleman on the ground. • At what time did he appear ?—After I had ad dressed Lord Cardigan in the manner I have stated, I saw the fifth gentleman on the ground. What did that fifth gentleman do at tended the gentleman who was wounded. Did you see then whether the other gentleman was wounded or not ?—I did not. After you had laid your hand upon the shoulder of Lord Cardigan, and said what you have told their Lordships, what did you do next ?—I turned to the other gentlemen and said the Rune to them. What did you do then?—The doctor went to the wounded gentleman in order to take him to my house. Sir W. FoLLETT—Did he say so ?—Yes. Mr. WADDINGTON—In the hearing of Lord Cardigan ?—Yes. By'Lord WYNFORD—Do you know, or did you know that fifth gentleman to be a medical man? —l'did not then, my Lord. Mr. WADDINGTON—You never saw any of thetn before, I suppose ?—No, I did not. Was the fifth gentleman examinin the gentleman who was wounded. ?—Not in my preSence. Did you all go to your house ?—Yes. All the five gentlemen and yourself I—Yea, all went into the yard, not into the house. Now then tell their Lordships what took place when all the five gentlemen and yourself got into the yard ?—We went into' the yard, and then - the wounded gentlemen retired into my room. Did you see him retire ?—I saw him go into my room, and come out again. Did he go by himself?—No one gantleman went with him. Was that the gentleman you call the doctor ? —Yes Sir. Did - you tee your wife take any thing into the room I—l did not. Did they presently come out of the room?—Yes. What was then done ? One gentleman asked me to allow the wounded gentleman to return to his own home, and I consented on their agreeing to give me his card. Did the wounded gentleman give you his card of address ? I had his card, but Ido not know from whom it came. You have that card now ?—I have. Produce it. Sir W. FOLLETT—I must object to !that, my Lord, unless the card was given to the witness by Lord Cardigan. Was Lord Cardigan present ?—He was in the yard. Lord WYNFORD—Was he near enough to see and hear what was done and said ?—Yes, my Lord, I think so. Mr: WADDINGTON—You think the Noble Lord could see what was done, and hear what was said ? should think so, but I cannot state precisely. Was the, card_ given to you in the house, or in the rird?—ln the yard. But you cannot say who gave you the card ? 'No I cannot say which. What do you mean by which?—One of the two gentlemen who wished to go airay l I mean. Were they together when they gave tt you?— Yes: The two were the wounded gentleman, and an other of the party ?—Yes. Then, upon your telling them that they might go, upon giving you their card, one of them gave you the card which you now produce?—Yes. Mr. WADDINGTON—I now propose, my Lords, to read that card. _ Sir W. FOLLETT—My Lords, the Counsel for the prosecution propose, for the purpose of proving the name of a certain gentleman who was present on this occasion. The LORD HIGH STEWARD-Mr. Attorney- General, do you think it material to press this at present ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—NO, my Lords, we will waive it at present. Mr. WADDINGTON—Did the gentleman who gave it you write something on the back o the card ? Yes, Sir. And upon receiving this card did you allow them to go ?—Yes, I did. In consequence of receiving this card did you call at any house ? Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT—I must object to the form of this question. My Learned Friend must alter its form. Mr. WADDINGTON—In consequence of any thing did you afterwards go to any house •In Hamilton-place did. What date was that?—lf you will alloW' me to refer, I will be able to state what was the day of the month. What do you want to refer to ?—To a memo randum of the date I called at Hamilton-pluce. Sir W. FOLLETT—When was that tnemorainlum made ?—At the time—on the day I called. On the 18th of September you went to Hamil ton-place with the card ?—On the 13th. Whom did you ask to see '1 —Captain Harvey T uckett. Whom did you see ?—I saw Captain Harvey Tuckctt. _ _ Did you speak to him ?—I did. Sir W. rOLLETT here objected that these ques tions were irregular. How did this witness know that he saw Captain Tuckett? He could only say that he saw a person whom he believed to be Captain Tuckett. Mr. WADDINGTON-I will ask him, then, did he address the gentleman whom he saw by the name of Captain Tuckett? Witness—l do not know that I addressed him by any name. Did you ever see him before?—Yes.` Where 7—On Wimbledon Common. What was he doing 7—He was fighting a duel. Was he the gentleman Who stood opposite to Lord Cardigan 7—Yes, he was. Now, how many of the gentlemen went away on your receiving the card 7—Three went away with my permission, and three without. Did Lord Cardigan remain 7—He did, Sir. Where did you take him to 7—To the station house at Wandsworth. When did you take him there 7—lmmediately afterwards. What did you do with the pistols after you put them in the eases ?—I took them to Wands worth. Did you give them to any one ?—I did. I gave them to the Inspector, at the station-house. Sir W. FOLLETT--I object to this mode of questioning. You should ask him, what did he do with the pistols? Mr. WADDINGTON—WCII, then, I shall put it so. When you took the pistols to Wandsworth, what did you do with them ?—I gave them to the Inspector of the police.. What was his name ?—Busain. Was anything said by Lord Cardigan in your presence respecting the pistols?—He owned one case. Can you state what he said ?—T am not exactly certain that he said anything particular, but some thing like " This is mine;" and then he took one case. Did you observe anything on these pistols ? Fes; a crest. 'Mr. WADDINGTON—That is all I shall ask this witness. [The Attorney-General, however, stopped Sir William from cross-examining, and held a short conference with Mr. Waddington, who resumed.] I wish, my Lords, to ask the witness one' other question. There was a fifth gentleman, whom you call the doctol-; did you ever see him after wards ?—Yes, I saw him at Wandsworth. Where and when ?—At the Magistrates' office. on the 14th. What was going on then ?—The examination of Lord Cardigan. Did you afterwards 'see him anywhere else ? I saw him at his own house, but I forget the number and the name of the street, but it is very handy to Pimlico. Was there a name on the door ?—Yes. What was it?—Sir James A. Anderson. Cross-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT.—Give me those memoranda. Now, tell n - e when did you write them ?—I wrote them every day, as the things occurred. Beginning on the 12th?—Yes. By whose desire did you do so?—By no one's. I did them for my own purpose—for my el penses. For you own expenses. But did no one tell you to make them ?—No ; there did no one tell me. The LORD HIGH STEWARD—Ask him are those papers the original memoranda which he made from day to day? Witness—No, they arc not. These are what I copied, a few ,days ago. Sir Wm. FOLLETT—What is the meaning of these figures ?—They signify the number of miles each day. Who,is indebted to you for those expenses? —The Magistrates. The Magistrates,; give me their names—Mr. Nottidge, the Chairman, Mr. Bainbridge, Mr. Wilson, and Captain Phge. Who gave you orders to go to Hamilton place ?—No one. I got a letter from the. Inspec tor of police, and in consequence of that I went there. How often did you go there I—Three times. AlWays by the same order I—No I .went once by the direction or Captain Page. • What was the object of your going therel - first was, to inquire after Mr. TuCketes health But who ordered you to go to Mr. Wain wright?—l do not know. Were the Magistrates getting up the prosecu. tion P—l do not know. Were not they, the Magistrates, the Judges before whom the case was tried ?—Yes, they were. And am I to understand that they are the persons who sent you to those different places to make inquiries ?—Yes. Did tliey,send you to the Old Bailey also to give evidence ?—No, they did not. I was bound in a bond to go there, and. 4 l was told by the In spector when the trial was to come on. You were examined before the Grand Jury ? —I was. On both the bills ?—Yes. • On the bill that was found against Lord Cardi gan and the bill against the other gentleman that was thrown out l—Yes. The same witnesses were examined on both the bills ?—Yes. You were examined on both ?—Yes, I was. And pray did you give the same evidence on both?—Yes, Sir, I did. And upon the same evidence and the same wit nesses one bill was found, and the other bill was thrown out ?—Yes, Sir, it was so. Will you be so kind as to go back a little and state what you have said. Did you see three persons get out of the carriage and go to the place where you saw the firing ?—Yes, I did, Sir. You state that when you saw them you recog nised one of them to be Lord Cardigan ?—Yes. Pray what distance from your house was the place where you saw them get out ?—Two hun dred and twenty yards. Do you mean to say that at that distance you were able to see and recognise the persons of those three parties ?—No Ido not say so; but never lost sight of them from that ti me. You did. You say that at that distance you knew Lord Cardigan—didyou not ?---No, I never said so. Could yon, at that distance, know any of the parties so as to be able to speak to them again —No, I could not. You have said that you saw them come out of the carriage, and that you knew and n ever rco nized one of them to be Lord Cardigan said so. If I did say so I mistated. I did not mean it. But I never lost sight of them from that time till I came up. You say that when you first saw the fire Yc' l, were standing at the gate; at what distan ce was that I—About the same distance-220 yards. Could you at that time recognise the persons —No, I could not. You say you-went towards theml—Yes; I ( lid. Where were you first able to recognise their persons?—l did not lose sight of them at all. I am not saying you did ; but I ask y ou, when were you first able to discover who they were I cannot say. It Was it after or before the second shot .---: was after the second shot. Then I understand you to say now that ye!l were not able to recognise them or to know their person, so as to speak to them at another tinie, until after the second shot I—No, I ca nnot 0Y that. I did not lose sight of them at all. Where was Lord Cardigan when yo - a first re' cognised them I—Standing near the spot. Yes: That was when you came up to thern?-- the Where were all the other gentleme n at time ?—Close by. And what were they doing ?—f cannot ex,: actly say . what they were doing because Toy aL tention was directed entirely to Lord Cardigall,;._ Your attention was directed entir el y to 115 Lord ship—Tou not know what t he were doing?—Not for a second or two . the Were you then able to tell wh ich of parties it was that fired the shot was ce rtaal others as to which was the party, because I never ("' sight of them till I got up to them. You never lost sight of them, but how did yonr% cognise the party I—Because I saw th e pistol 1 his hand. He had a pistol in his hand when you cam e up ?—Yes. the How soon after that was it that you tow other gentleman that you said was a doctort' a When I turned round from Lord Cardig anhe I perceived there were four. ou Very well, then ; how soon after that did , di • see another You saw four besides Lord -Car gan tob e ` Did you recognise the prisoner so as able to know him again ?—Yes. h• t And he went up to the hougo als o wit h other parties ?—Yes. that Very well. Now there is one questionyou places that have been to. Have you been paid your chaf es • for Didi yooini g ugo to the Home-office at tinY rne?-"'" Yes. When ?—A week ago last Saturday., ato go What did you go far ?—I was reques te- f „ n3l there, and then I was asked questions as evidence. ec ? Who asked you, questions at the Home -o{ -..--A gentleman of the name of Vizard. Was your examination taken down at the t l e t i l t --A gentleman was writing at the 61'1' got whether he wrote down what I said, I u" know. t wa tas You had not been therebefore ?-Is l.o i thn the first time. your i4 And that was the only examination o . e taken for the purpose of this trial ?- - Y You had not been examined from the eg t inio ) ,::,l went to the Old Bailey till you went to the 1 -1( be . office last week. Was any one else the re in ia sides you ?—My wife and son, Mr. Bus aana ffiett Mr. Bignall. We all went to the Hth ne l " - only but what occurred there I know no t. answer for myself. l i g e Aa r Have you presented this bill any w—r nil payment ?—I applied to the Magistrates for expenses, and they gave me a certificate. . r ha ve Very well, have you received it ?—N°I j not. th at Now I understand you, Mr. Dann, to at 9 L., t he you never lost sight of these gentlemen frolir, I time when you first saw them ?-01 1 no, have not said that. it t oo; Did you tell me in answer to a question oilig meat a‘ro When I asked you about their c°, t of from the l curricles that you .never lot sig a them ?—lt certainly was a mistake if I did. You - certainly said so ?—lt was a r nistalli. te r I. Then you did lose sight of them ?----", /1 " first saw them come on the ground I did . For how long l-A few minutes. ~ 05 on Where were you during that time ?-- - -a - 1 went the stage of the mill, twenty feet high. t ill A to my house ; there ! I lost sight of the in t . came to the gate; then I did not lose sig e h r th an HoW long did you lose sight ?--NOl O4- a ble' il it took me to lay my hand upon my c oils a - u o stir . Why did you not go at once when Y° go pected a duel ?—t thought it better 11°'t t without authority. 0 ld fig h t You thought it better that they 5. 1 1 -- T ti o id tio t the duel before you interfered ?—N°,' think that. ova What was the meaning of your ans‘v e}l lse t you said. that you told your wife t o walla!:os A my. wife to watch and let me know duel. he '1 Your wife was to watch and as soon a' 9 5 to te ll what was sufficient for a duel, then she "y a r ds fo r you, and then you were to go 12° Y . g s Y °ll , the purpose of preventing it—that 353 plan ?- --Yes. And when you got up you found that the ben tlemen had exchanged two shots I—Ye s ' u tiell • Who instructed you to prevent the g e • 0 - t oin° ° from 'fighting a duel on Wimbledon-0o the —Mr. Carter, the Coroner, I believe, ' person. „ .... ..ires.. 't ? And you have ever since interfered • de of And this was the first job that you nal n Why did —T have pr you not call evented severout to those gent tle glite a f i .,, when you supposed they were about t° to d ie " - duel?—l do not know my reason. I r an as fast You changed as could. , ?....s°' your coat, did you n o. ot i Did you stop the mill ?—No. pia I ra , Re-examined by Mr. WADDINGTON". in ) ,-- t state what was the number of the lieuse_, ilia milton-place where you saw the gent leni rare' you call Capt. Tuckett?-13, Hatniltolll Three How often did you see him ~o. o it times. ;00 1 . 1 Upon three different days ?—Three t. - , three different days. .. : ?.---- y . es. Did you ask for hirreon each oceas c i er d l id. , , i e You asked for Captain Tuckett ?- 4 I , t otta n i - , You have been asked as to losing Sig. t he t he eV gentlemen. Did you .ever lose sight the tinle,, tleinan , who fired the first shot from l ?----IN'''' r ,tiae C t ,,g an ed 3 i T t o lo4 u undertake 4o. to state' leaving your gate till you got up to then wher e there • who fired the s P e ° c s o i t t l i t ivesi . rit et s t e't ; tl the same as fired the first ?—lain posin v CaP tal d .- Ti. ' i -W ck i e l ' e tt n‘ h-a3rcloua gpoitstoulp iii his Cardigan : also a ' Ihis hand?. t V t ' n , psto in tha ' fa in . The ).arl: of RADNOR—Each talc Cie went to Hamilton-place did you asic - i Tnekett?—Yes my Lord. qlll‘ , , gent' e- AV ere,you each time shown to the s. ? man ?--Yes. • no tile ° , e ntleni And did you see any other f CAP . —Ycs.naive o . , - t' And.did you address him by. they3.l de ter' sgilldt.llslktilad -1-'°.r., thin Tuckett ?—I don't know that 1 aid. iti Did anything that passed enable PI 11 ot - a mine that it was Captain Tuckett, tin e Icr ote other gentleman ?—Yes, my Lo rd 'l, l ; 'ila llle. l4 note to the Magistrates, and signed. ...A yes, A PEER—Signed hispanic Tuckett? --- a or I n Lord. It. . -on it Was the other the gentleman that 3 . it 0 , Wimbledon Common ?—No, InY 1' c that different gentleman. ; A le -erY t?--- -- 1 till° Did you see..that gentlem an u e c l iett you were shown up to Captain T I did not see him the last time. e s inY eft f did not see him every time.? -1( t T o el:o The Earl of RADNOR—You are, s ure t f i ll o a r t 4: In each case you asked for CaPtaln" tletnani‘ Yes, my Lord. ell here re' (The shorthand writer's notes v 4 to ios- • 1 You were shown directly up to thi,sere , ferred to.) NV Pr'l • i g l i Tile ATTORNEY-GENERAL -1 110 _ bru oie your Lordships that I be perm itte li d y t° e red t ° , the evidence the card which was df.. ble f',ll ll, _„rt witness in the presence of the . 1 -'' ° that it if. r. 5, of the MS geste, and on that blind it t he v,,,,,: prisoner at the bar. I apprehend , 4 is A (111 1 :4, Bible. Your Lordships will o bserve _t a ,, a s oven I ' l l 4 deuce relating to it is not that it .7. 1 w itli Lord Cardigan, but that it was gi el of Ea r/ e knowledge. - +hat the !hence'e" Sir W. FOLLETT—It is clear v id Ile ( a Cardigan did not see the cord. . no e v eiu g what was written upon it. There 18 . cur d b_ ov e to show that he was aware of anZ i , to Pa given. The object of this eviden t ( ' i it is snit fir 1 The ATTORNEY -GENERAL says care! pO . ~ i i gave that card of of t t e r a ca• r a li , who the person was who might give res geste. A person le, b u t of _tii e co the purpose of giving his realnan . ~ _ b 0 1 another, and unless that was done Tx'' EVENING EDITION THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1841. ENIN 4 ,1) ~4 ~~i ~i~