The Sun.
London, England, 1847-10-11 00:00:00

THE DUJARRIER DUEL.
TRIAL OF M. DE BEAUVALLON.

The charge of perjury against M. de Beauvallon
came on on Friday before the Court of Assize. The
circumstances out of which this prosecution arose
have been so fully before the public that it is neces-
sary only to mention now the leading points. It will
be remembered, that when M. d'Ecquevilley, one of
the seconds in the duel between M. de Beauvallon
and M. Dujarrier, was tried not long ago on a charge
of perjury, M. de Beauvallon appeared as a witness,
and deposed to certain facts, which the Jury, by their
verdict against M. d'Ecquevilley, declared to be false.
M. de Beauvallon, being contradicted by other evi-
dence, was ordered into custody, and after an inquiry
by the Chambre des Mises en Accusation, a warrant
was made out for his trial before the Court of Assize.

The chief point in the evidence of M. de Beau-
vallon, on behalf of M. d'Ecquevilley was as to the
pistols which were used. Beauvallon strenuously
denied that they had been tried by him in the garden
of d'Ecquevilley, at Chaillot, whereas other witnesses
deposed that they had.
On Friday, after the usual interrogatories as to the
age, profession, &c., of the prisoner, M. de Beauvallon
was asked by the President whether it was not one
of the conditions of the duel that the pistols should
be unknown to either of the principals in the duel, to
which he replied, that he was not aware of this until
after the duel. Being next questioned as to the trial
of the pistols in the garden of M d'Ecquevilley, he
denied that any had taken place, or that he had made
an appointment with M. de leynard to go there
with him for that purpose. He stated that he was
afraid M. d'Ecquevilley would not be up sufficiently
early for the duel, and had resolved to go to his
house to rouse him ; and as M. de Meynard had pro-
mised to accompany him, an appointment was made
to that effect. The prisoner also denied the truth of
the evidence of Madame Valori, who swore, on the
trial of D'Ecquevilley, that he (Beauvallon) had
called on her, and told her that he was going to try
the pistols. He was next reminded of the evidence of
M. de Bertrand, who swore that, on the ground, he
put his finger into one of the pistol-barrels and with-
drew it blackened, thus showing that it had been re-
cently used, and of the corroborative testimony of
Dr. Guise. He declared that he was utterly igno-
rant of this circumstance. The President, having
reminded him of the description given by M. de
Meynard of the locality where the pistols were tried,
the prisoner said, nothing of what M. de
Meynard had stated as to what took place was true,
and that he had gone to the garden to study the
locality and invent the fable which he had recited in
Court. He was next asked why he had concealed
that the pistols which were used at the duel were the
property of his brother-in•law, M. Granier de Cas-
sagnac. He said that he had not concealed it, but
had mentioned the fact to several persons. In con-
clusion, he admitted that he had sworn, on the trial
of M. d'Ecquevilley, that the pistols had not been
tried by him (M. Beauvallon), and persisted in the
assertion.

The first witness called was M. de Maynard, who
repeated the evidence which he had given in the
former case as to the trial of the pistols, &c., by M.
de Beauvallon. M. de Meynard declared that he
had no animosity against the prisoner, and had given
his evidence only from a sense of public duty.
The prisoner said he believed that M. de Meynard
had an animosity against him. It would be for his
counsel, at the proper time, to state the cause. The
President said the time had arrived, but the prisoner
persisted in remaining silent ; observing, however,
that the cause of animosity was of a nature to strike
the court and the jury when it should be made known.
At length, being pressed by the President, he said
with some hesitation, that it was jealousy about a
female. M. de Meynard, he said, had at one time
paid his court to a female, and thinking he had been
supplanted by him had resolved to be revenged. There
was not, he added, a word of truth in what M. de
Meynard had sworn against him. _ _ _

11. de Meynard, with great energy, denied that he
had ever entertained the feeling ascribed to him by
the prisoner, and again declared that he had sworn
truly, and from no other motive than a sense of what
was due to justice.
The prisoner produced some letters from a female,
from which it would appear that M. de Meynard was
much irritated against M. de Beauvallon, and had
pursued her with his assiduities after wounding her
husband in a duel.

M. de Meynard protested that there never was any
ground for this statement. He admitted that he had
fought a duel with her husband, but asserted that he
had always professed the most profound respect for
the wife. He was not in Paris at the time when he
was stated in the letters to have paid the visits there
spoken of.
Several other witnesses then gave evidence to the
effect that De Meynard had told them, either before
or after the trial of Beauvallon at Rouen, that the
pistols had been tried in Ecquevilley's garden on
the morning of the duel, and they deposed also
to the truth of the other circumstances tending
to prove that fact, which have already been recorded.
Among these witnesses were M. Arthur Bertrand,
M. E. de Girardin, M. Arnoux, Doctor de Guise, and
Mlle. Valor'. The latter declared that Beauvallon
had called on her, on the morning of the duel, to take
de Meynard, with whom she lived, and had told her
that he was about to practice pistol-shooting, previous
to going to the duel. This witness also declared that
she had nothing to do with the letters which had
been referred to.

When her evidence was concluded the prisoner's
advocate exclaimed , "This woman has just sworn
that her name is Valori, but that is not her real
name."
The witness, who was greatly agitated, cried, " I
expected this observation. lam known under the
name of Valori, but I have another name—that of an
honourable man. I demand of the prisoner and
his advocate not to commit the baseness of declaring
it."
The
at Beauvallon.
witnessthenwithdrew, casting an indignant
glance
It was then proposed to read the letters from the
female.
The Advocate-General said that the first, which was
dated 15th April, 1845, and was addressed to M.
Beauvallon, had no post-mark nor proof of authenti-
city. It might have been fabricated, he added, for
necessity of the cause, though he did not say it had
been. The second letter had no post-mark, and he
made the same observation with respect to it.
The President proceeded to read
the letters, which
appear to form the principal point in the prisoner's
defence. The first letter is as follows :
"Paris, April 15,1845.
"My dear Rosamond,—Many days have passed
away, and no news from you! Alas 1 I, who do not
partake your blind confidence in men and things, fear
that some accident may have occurred to you in this
long and painful journey. Have you passed the
frontier without mishaps ? In treading the soil of
Spain, that land in which there is no prison for you,
have you found a little of that careless and sweet
gaiety which your recent catastrophe had so com-
pletely driven from your heart ? Oh, no! lam cer-
tain you have not, for I always see you as sad and as
much:in despair as on the evening of that unfortunate
duel. If I were to live a hundred years I should
always recal to mind your despairing attitude, your
abundant tears ; yes, I shall always see you walking
in agitated and feverish steps before me, repeating
incessantly, with emotion, " They have forced me to
commit homicide !" I did not endeavour to calm
that grief then, for it was natural, and did you
honour. But now my riend, let me be permitted to