The Sun.
London, England, 1847-08-19 00:00:00

,qlTentikc ilit

LONDON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 1847.

There is no doubt that the verdict returned by the
jury in the case of Lieutenant MUNRO, who was
yesterday tritel at the Central Criminal Court on a
charge of wilful-murder, was strictly in accordance
with the law of the land. Nothing can be more
clearly defined than the law relating to duelling. In
every instance the judge will tell the jury, that if two
persons go out deliberately, armed with deadly
weapons, for the purpose of fighting, and that one of
them is killed, the survivor, and indeed all the parties
concerned, whether as seconds or lookers on, will be
guilty of wilful murder, and that they can return no
other verdict in accordance with the oath they have
taken. The questions for their consideration are of
the simplest character, viz.—whether a duel took
place—whether the death of the deceased was thereby
occasioned--and whether the prisoner was a party
thereto. If these queries should be answered in the
affirmative, and the evidence generally speaking
is of the most conclusive and satisfactory descrip-
tion, such as to leave no reasonable doubt
there should be a conviction, and yet, in nine-
teen cases out of twenty, the juries have interposed
themselves between the law and the accused, and
have returned a verdict exonerating him from all
guilt. Indeed, we believe that we are justified in
asserting that no former case can be adduced in
which a conviction had been obtained unless some
blame was imputable to the survivor, either in
the causes that led to the conflict or in the manage-
ment of the duel. The present case, however, forms
a striking exception to the general rule. The unfor-
tunate gentleman placed on his trial received the
highest character from persons of every class in so-
ciety. His career, up to the commission of the fatal
act, had been in every respect a most meritorious
one. His father, a gallant and distinguished officer,
who, by his unflinching bravery and invariable good
conduct, had elevated himself from the humblest sta-
tion to an honourable position in the British service—
who, as one of the forlorn hope, had planted the
standard of his country on the arm, edbattlements of
Seringapatam, and, rewarded by well-merited pro-
motion, had retired with the rank captain,
heohealoy,
in his old age, that peace and tranquiity
richly earned by the services and dangers of hisso
youth. The son was not possessed of wealth or in-
fluence sufficient to obtain a commission in the ordi-
nary mode, but he emulated the valour of his sire,
and, trusting to his own merits for promotion, he
unhesitatingly entered the ranks as a private soldier.
He was not mistaken—conduct such as his could not
fail to be appreciated, and he was ultimately pro-
moted to a commission in one of our most distinguished
regiments. As an officer he maintained the high
He
he had obtained in a humbler capacity.
He was respected and beloved not only by his brother
officers, but also by those from amongst whom he had
been promoted, and he was universally up
on
as u on
83 a distinguished officer,
n and a mild, humane, and
benevolent man.
of
the illustrious Marquis of AN-
GLESEY, colonel e regiment ; the gallant Col.
BouvEam had , whofought at Waterloo with the men
he now commands
; ie
Lord
of ARUNDEL and
SURREY, and of mmiten,
LBd
GEORGE MANNERS,
and Mr. PERCIVAL, his brother officers, bore the
onble character,
strongest testimony to his unexceptionable
his singularly inoffensive, human!ti and apeaceable dis-
position, while a corporal and private were produced
been
Judgeof
one
to speak of his conduct while he had
themselves, so as to justify the Learned
saying that he had seldom heard such a character
given given to any man. Such was his position when the
uttoward event occurred which blasted all his pros-
pects, which deprived him of the rank and station he
had gained for himself by twenty years of unim-
Peachable conduct, and plunged himself, his wife, and
six helpless children, from comparative affluence into
poverty and distress.
His brother-in-law, Lieutenant-Colonel FAWCETT,
his return from China, had inflicted a gross and
unmerited insult on Lieutenant AfuNno. A family
quarrel connected with pecuniary matters, in which
we believe there was not the slightest doubt that the
;
deceased was
-n fault,u led to the unhappy difference,
and Lieutenant MUNRO was
ignominiously turned
out of the house by his
relative. Ilis position was a
Vhat could be do ?
What course was open to him ?.
very peculiar one. Be belonged
jealous in the highest degree to a profession
submitting patiently to an of
insult any fha members
the law, or of
afforded to him was either of vi The option
being degraded in the sight of ohistinegompanions, and
perhaps deprived of the rank he had struggled so