The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-03 00:00:00

LAW INTEL

•(THIS DAY).

COURT OF CHANCERY.
BOSTOCK V. SIDEBOTTOM.

This was an application for an injunction to restrain
an action at law to compel the defendants to fill up a
certain void or channel for water which bad been exca-
vated for the purpose of procuring an additional supply
to a certain trill built upon ground leased by the defen-
dants of the plaintiff. Mr. Malingo, Q. 0., appeared for
the appellants, and Mr Russel!, Q.C., for the respondent.
It appeared that, upwards of fifty years ago, a piece of
laud was granted on lease by the plaintiff to the defen-
dants, with the understood arrangement that certain
works were to be erected upon it, but for which there
was no especial covenant. There was a covenant, how-
ever, that the defendants should have a right to form a
watercourse from the river Mersey to their grounds. The
mill was erected and the watercourse made, a period of
two years being allowed for its excavation, and for 5
series of years answered its purpose. The advancement
of science had provided other and more efficient agents
for working the mill, and the action had been laid to
compel the defendants to fill up the watercourse.

His Lordship ruled that sufficient time had been
granted to the defendants to form their watercourse how
and in what way they thought proper. Such being the
case, the plaintiff was not to be damaged by the con-
duct of the defendants. He should therefore refuse the

injunction, but granted a month to replace the soil that
had been removed.

QUEEN'S BENCH.
THE DUEL AT EGHAM.
Mr. M. Chambers moved for a writ of habeas oorpus
to bring up before the Court Etienne Barronnet and

Edmond Allain, in order that they might be admitted to
bail, and also to bring up the depositions taken against

them before the magistrates and the coroner for Surrey,

,hey having been committed to take their trial at the

next assizes for murder. The charge originated in a
duel, and these two gentlemen had acted as the friends
of Frederic Cournet, formerly a French naval officor,
who unfortunately lost his life in the contest. From the

depositions, it appeared that on the 19th of October, be-
tween twelve and one o'clock, two or three persons, who

happened to be in some fields at Priest-hill, Egham, were
attracted by the report of a pistol. Among them was a
medical gentleman, named Hayward, who was then re-
turning from a visit to a
Patient- Soon after the report

was heard, a French gPntleman made his appearance,
who afterwardi turned cut to be Allain, and begged Mr.
Hayward to accompany him to a neighbouring field,

where he said a friend of his had been wounded by a

pistol shot. On goirg to the spot, Mr. Hayward saw M.
Cournet on the ground, supported by M. Barronnet, who
was endeavouring to staunch a wound in the chest. By the
direction of Mr. Hayward, who saw that the injury was

mortal, the unfortunate individual was removed to a

neighbouring public.house. Here Allain remained
nearly an hour, and then departed for London to obtain
the assistance of a French physician. Mr. Barronnet
remained by the side of his friend until 6 o'clock, when
ho expired. Information having been instantly given to
the police, three French gentlemen were traced to the
railway station at Windsor. The telt graph was at once
put to work, and they were apprehended on arriving at
the Waterloo station. These persons were M. Allain,

A. Barthelemy, and M. Mornay. It appeared on further
investigation that on the previous evening M. Attain and
two other French gentlemen went to the shooting gallery
in Leicester-square, and hired a pair of pistols, which
were delivered to him in a foul state, having been used
before that day. A very erroneous but fearful impres-
sion had been made in regard to some supposed unfair-
ness in the duel, owing to the appearance which one of
the pistols presented on being examined after the event.
This was, however, clearly explained by the evidence
of a witness, who stated that ho saw M. Allain and an•
other Frenchman, clean the pistols with a linen rag, and
on finding that the touch-bole was all right by blowing
through the barrel, fold them up in a piece of brown
paper, and seal the outside. The party who delivered
the pistols to Attain at the shooting gallery, was called
before the magistrates, and he said that on the evening
of the duel, a foreigner, with whom he was unacquainted,
returned the two pistols to him, and received back the
deposit, and that one of them was still loaded, and could
not possibly have gone cif as there was a piece of linen
rag underneath the powder, near the end of the touch-
hole. That, of course, led to a frightful inference as to
the nature of the duel, but the evidence adduced by the
other witness, clearly explained how the linen got there
Ile had thought it right to mention these few facts, as
otherwise the offence of the prisoners would seem to be
of a far more serious description, and because his clients
wished to be cleared from the imputation that they were
not men of high principle and honour.
Lord Campbell—Those gentlemen, I understand, ask
to be admitted to bail, because this was what is called a

fair clad.
Mr. Chambers—Precisely co.
Lord Campbell.—This is the first time the Court has
been called upon to interfere on such a ground.
Mr. Chambers said he thought he should be able to
show that the impreFa en entertained by his lordship
might be erroneous.
Lord Campbcll.—Do you mean to contend that if a
duel is fair it is not murder by the law of England?
Mr. Chambers did not mean to say that, but there
were mitigating circumstances, which at any rate might
render the offence a bailable one. In the present case
the defendants in the spirit of frankness and candour,
and actuated by high honor, readily admitted before the
magistrates that they were concerned in the duel, but
pleaded ignorance of the English law, and said that they
had done every thing in their power to settle the differ-
ences of the antagonists almost up to the moment the
duel took place, but without success.
The Learned Counsel then read the affidavits of Allain
and Barronnet, to chew that they were persons of irre-
proachable character and good station in their own
country, and had only engaged in the duel believing that
they were compelled to do so by the principles of honor
which were observed in France. He thought it was not
too much to ask that these two foreigners should be saved
for six months prior to their trial, when it was recol-
lected that some of the most distinguished persons in
England had fought duels, sometimes with fatal results,
and yet escaped any kind of punishment.
Lord Campbell said, ho was clearly of opinion that no
sufficient ground had been shown to justify the Court
interfering to admit these persons to bail. They wore
placed exactly in the position of British-born subjects,
and justice would be administered to them with the
same fairness as if they were in the position of the most
exalted individuals in the realm. He was firmly con-
vinced that if a person of the highest eminence was
found guilty of murder by a jury, he being accessory to
a duel which caused death, and admitted his participa-
tion, no tribunal of the country would liberate him
before trial. The Court could not look on this case
; and if the ooefession
gaelluded to were given in
owthhiecrhw
theiso thawlear
learned
a ocoaapai capital chhaadr
evidence at the trial, sentence of death would necessarily
have to be pronounced, and all mercy then rested with
the Crown. The prisoners must, therefore, remain in
custody until the assizes. They would, however, have a
fair trial, and were entitle I to have a jury, if they liked,
composed equally of fore gners and Englishmen.
Application refused.

VICE -CH IIkTCBLLOR'S COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Stuart.)

WIZ T:;EH V. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY,

His Honour, who sat at Lincoln's-inn, was occupied
the whole of the morning in hearing the objections of
the plaintiff to an answer put in by the defendants,
stating their inability to produco a statement of certain
accounts respecting the formation of a covered way, and
other works, completed near Ealing, as long ago as the
year 1837. Mr. Daniel, Q.C., with Mr. Hetherington,
appeared for Mr. Zd'lntosh, and Mr. Stephen's for the
Company. The cause has been several times before the
Court, and arose out of a breach of contract to complete
the works ; the Company alleging, through their en-
gineer, Mr. Brunel, that they wore not liable, in conse-
quence of the non-completion of the contract ; and the
plaintff asserting, that in consequence of the Company
requiring that the plans and drawings for the works,
which it was originally arranged should be furnished in
November, 1837, be pnt in to the engineer first in Sep-
tember, and afterwards in August of that year, ho was
placed in a position which rendered it impossible for
him to complete the contract within the required time.
His Honour overruled the objection that the answer
was incomplete, and a number of objections was then
put in to the original bill.