The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-08 00:00:00

LAW REGARDING DUELS,

The trial of Captain DOuglay, the second of Lord
Cardigan, in the duel with Captain Tuckett, hes had a
similar result at the Central Criminal Court, to that of
the Noble E al' in the House of Peers.

Oa this occasion, it may be said, the singular circum-
stance presented itself of the Judge being counsel both
for the prosecution and the prisoner, but not improperly
so in either case. We must mention the circumstance
only as a very remarkable one.
This is only the second trial that has ever taken place
for the statutable offence of malicious shooting at the
person with intent, &c., in a duel. Lord Cardigan's
having been the first, and both have failed, not in con-
sequence of any doubt thrown upon the sufficiency of
the law to punish the offence as felony, but because of
defective evidence.
A beginning having been made in prosecutions under
this statute, nobody hereafter can plead ignorance of the
felonious nature of the act cemmitted by fighting a
duel, even though neither death nor wound should
ensue.

It was natural enough that among persons not much
a quainted with the laws of their country, an opinion
should long have prevailed that a duel, unless it ended
in death, was no higher offence than nierels a breach
of the peace. The circumstance of no person ever
having been prosecuted except for homicide connected
with a duel, as in the cases of Bailey, Scott, lienizesey,
and others, did crea'e the popular error that
there was no Isw or statute against duelling (except as
a breach of the peace), unless when death was the con-
sequence. And then the act came under the general
law of murder, which it required no statute to punish,
because it is punishable by the unwrit!en or common
1 ew—the indictment for murder not being framed ac-
cording to any statute, but conformably with ancient
precedent, varying only in the statement of the circum-
stances which are descriptive of the offence.
Daring the controversy which we had with some
daily journals respecting the acquittal of the Earl of
Cardigan, we explained the law of the case, divesting
the question as much as possible of the technical lan-
guage, in order to make it clear to the popular mind.
We showed that at any time since the ninth year of
George 1., down to the first s ear of Queen Victoria,
any person who unlawfully discharged a pistol or any
loaded arms at another, with intent to murder, maim,
disfigure, or do grievous bodily harm, was liable to be
indicted for felony, and, if convicted, hanged. It is
only since the first sear of the present Sovereign that
the act for which the Earl of Cardigan and Captain
Douglas have been tried, has ceased to be a capital
felony.
This furnishes an additional argument to the many
which we have from time to time adduced, and which
have been adduced by others against capital enact-
ments. During upwards of a century, the act of fight-
ing even a bloodless duel was an offence punishable
with death, and it was never prosecuted, but within
two or three years after the offence of maliciously shoot-
ing with intent to murder, disable, &c., ceased to be
capital, two prosecutions for felony take place—that
felony having consisted in fighting a duel. where death
did not ensue, though we cannot call it bloodless, as a
slight wound was received. Still the prosecutors
treated it as a bloodless duel in law, by not alleging the
wound in the indictment. This was done to avoid
charging the parties with a capital offence. For if the
charge had been shooting and wounding with intend
to murder, it would have put Lord Cardigan and his
second on trial for their lives, that offence being still
capital under Lord J. Russell's Act.—Herald.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

SHERIFFS' COURT, MARcH 7.

CORRIGALL V. LONDON AND DLACKWALL RAILWAY COMPANY.

The Jury were specially empanelled for the purpose of
awarding compensation to plaintiff for the injury his pro-
perty had sustained through the construction of the railway.
A view of the premises for which claim was made being
demanded on the part of the Company, the Jury, at twelve
o'clock, left the Court for that purpose, and proceeded t.)
the house, No. 82, Lueas-strcet, Commereial-road. They
returned about a quarter before two o'clock, and were then
sworn, after which the proceedings commenced, Mr Phil-
lips appearing with Mr. F. Kelly, for plaintiff, and Mr.
Biggs for the defendants.

Mr. KELLY stated the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Thomas
Corrigall, a retired master mariner, who had invested his
savings in the purchase of house property, of which the
house in question forms a part, and being immediately con-
tiguous to a viaduct of the railway, by which Lucas-street
is intersected, has, through the noise and other nuisances
created by the erections and traffic on the railway, become
so deteriorated in value, as to render it untenable ; indeed,
it would be proved that tEe le,t tenant had left in conse-
quence. Now, in the Act of 6 and 7 William IV., the
51st clause expressly provides " that any property situated
within 50 feet of the railway which might be deteriorated
by the construction of the railway, should, of necessity, be
purchased by the Compauy," Sc.:. The Jury, therefore, had
to consider whether the property had really been injured,
and if so what was the value of that lease, of which fifty-
one years are unexpired, and which is held at a peppercorn
rent, and has been let at.lB/. per annum. .

. .
Evidence was heard in support of the claim, when Mr.
Biggs addressed the Jury, and called witnesses, who were
of opinion that the property was not impaired by the
railway.
The,Learned UNDER- SHERIFF summed up, and the Jury
after consulting for some time, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, " That the deterioration of the house is perma-
nent, and the value for which is 2501."