The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 22, 1853.

and rank. He could mention many instances where
the usages of Imlay had coMpelled men of the
very highest position to go out, to fight a duel, which,
in-so:no instatkces, had hen attended with fatal results,-
and yet there had been no conviction for murder.
person who killed another in a duel had never yet been
ranked with those criminals whose horrid crime rendered
them objects of disgust to the whole of the community,
and he felt satisfied that the jury would come to that
conclusion upon the present occasion. [The learned
counsel was then about to mention the names of parties
who had been engaged in different duels attended with a
fatal result, when the learned judge interfered, and said
he was not justified in doing so, as he was, in point of
fact, giving evidence which was not admissable.] Mr.
Chambers went on to say that he yielded immediately to
the direction of the court. His only object was to show
that notwithstanding what had been said about the in-
flexible character of the law, killing in a duel had never
been looked upon as an ordinary murder, and the rea-
son was clear why it could not be so. He then referred
to the facts of the case, and said that, so far as a second
was concerned, it was always regarded as the great-
est proof of friendship a man could afford to attend an-
other upon such an occasion ; and that, so far from his
anticipating a fatal result, in a great many cases
it was the object of a second to effect a reconciliation
between the parties, and avert the possibility of any-
thing serious occurring. For all that appeared to the con-
trary, in the present case, this was all that had been
done by M. Barronet ; and he put it to them whether,
under such circumstances, he ought to be convicted of
the crime of murder. It was only by a fiction of law
that the charge of murder could be at all supported, but
he submitted that it was a fiction far to strong for the
jury to give effect to, to say that a man was guilty of
murdering his dearest friend, when it was clear that his
only motive was to assist and protect him as far as laid
in his power. They had it in evidence that after the
fatal occurrence, Barronet evinced the deepest misery
and sorrow for what had occurred, and that he remained
with his dying friend up to the very last moment, and
the jury were called upon to convict this man of murder-
ing that friend. Upon this view of the case he asked the
jury for an acquittal for the prisoner for whom he ap-
peared ; but he would also ask for it upon the ground
that there was nothing to show that Barronet had acted
in any other way than a piece-maker -; and that even
upon the evidence for the prosecution, there was nothing
to show that he was present even when the fatal shot
was fired.
Mr. Parry and Mr. Ballantine also addressed the jury
for their respective clients. They repeated a good many
of the arguments used by Mr. Chambers, and both the
learned counsel contended that it was clear the strict
letter of the law in cases of duels could not be carried
out, as it was repugnant to common sense andito the feel-
ings of jurors, and indeed every one concerned in the
administration of the criminal law. They also called
the attention of the jury to the circumstance of the piece
of the piece of rag being found in the pistol, and Mr.
Parry said that he was surprised that his learned friend
Mr. Locke should have mentioned the matter, inasmuch
as it was perfectly clear, from all the circumstances, that
that the piece of rag must have remained in the pistol by
accident at the time it was cleaned, and that if blame
was to be attached to any one, the seconds of the deceased
alone were responsible, as it was their duty to have seen
that the weapon was properly loaded ; and if there really
had been anything wrong, they must be supposed to
have sacrificed their own friend.
Some witnesses were then called to speak to the cha-
racter of Allain and Barronet, and they described them
as having been persons of honour and respectability in
their own country.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, in summing up the case, said
that after the long speeches they had heard, and the ob-
servations that had been made by the learned counsel for
the prisoners upon the subject of the law, he felt it right
to remind the jury that he and they both sat there to
adminster the law under the obligation of an oath, and it
was their duty to do so fearlessly and conscientiously.
It was very painful for a judge to have to sit and dis-
pose of so serious a case, and he must confess that he
was surprised to hear learned counsel, of great expe-
rience and great talent, tell a jury the law was that
which they knew it was not, and, to speak plain
English, mislead them, and endeavour to induce them
to find a verdict which they knew could not be
justified either by the facts or the evidence. The four
gentlemen at the bar were Frenchmen, but they resided
in this country, and were therefore subjects of the Queen,
and bound to obey the law, and he would tell them what
the law was upon the subject of the present case, and
he believed they would be of opinion that it was not only
in accordance with the law, but also with the dictates of
common sense. The law was this—lf one or more per-
sons went out together, armed with deadly weapons, for
the purpose of committing an unlawful act, which
fighting a duel undoubtedly was, and the death of one
of the parties ensued, it was in the eye of the law
murder in every person connected with the transac-
tion, and this applied equally to the seconds of the de-
ceased as to those of the survivor ; in fact, they were
all held to be responsible for that which might be ex-
pected as the natural result of the act they were about
to commit. If, therefore, the jury should believe that
the prisoners, or either of them were proved to have
acted in this manner, they would be justified in finding
them guilty of murder ; but if the evidence was not sa-
tisfactory as to their identity, or upon any other point,
they would then say they were not guilty.
The jury retired at a quarter to seven o'clock, and re-
turned into court in about an hour with a verdictiof
guilty of manslaughter.
The learned Judge, addressing the prisoners, said they
had been convicted, after a very long and patient inquiry,
of the crime of manslaughter, and it was now his duty
to pass sentence upon them for that offence. He ob-
served that they had already been in prison more than
five months, and he thought it probable that, being
foreigners, they were ignorant of the law of this country
upon the subject of duelling, and that, therefore, they
might have been misled ; and, taking all these circum
stances into consideration, the sentence would be much
lighter than otherwise would have been. He then sen-
tenced all the prisoners to be further imprisoned for the
space of two months.