The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-09-25 00:00:00

THE LATE FATAL. DUEL.

On Friday, John Young and Henry Webber surrendered
to take their trial upon an indictment charging them with
aiding and assisting one Francis Lionel Eliot to kill and
murder Charles Flower Alirtin. The prisoners were young
men of fashionable appearance.
11r. Broughton, the other person charged, did not surren-
der, on account, as it was stated, of the indisposition of Mr.
Clarkson, who was to defend him. _ _ _

Mr. Chambers addressed the Jury. He said that be ap-
peared before the jury to state (he circumstances that led to
the present solemu and important inquiry. He begged them
to dismiss from their minds all the rumours they had heard
upon the subject out of doors. They were all aware that the
deceased met his death in an affray called a duel. It would
be unnecessary for him to enter into details upon the subject
of duelling. The law of England did not enter into the nice
punctilios of the code of honour, but it was clearly laid down
that if two persons went out together deliberately, armed with
deadly weapons, and one of them was killed, the survivor,
and those who aided and abetted him in the act, were guilty
of murder. They were aware from the indictment, that Mr.
Eliot was charged to be the person who actually caused the
death of the deceased, and the offence charged against the
prisoners was that they acted as seconds, and were feloniously
present when the act was committed. The learned counsel
then proceeded to enter into a brief detail of the circumstances
under which the deceased met his death, and said there could
he no doubt that death was occasioned by the shot fired by
Mr. Eliot. It would he for them to state their opinions upon
the facts of the case as they would he laid before them, and
he was sure they would do so without any reference to the
legal consequences of their decision. lie then called wit-
nesses.

The following were examined, and gave testimony similar
to that given before the Coroner's Jury :—Mr. Thomas Goto-
bed, Robert Matthews (waiter at the saloon,) Mr. Henry
Hunt, R. Cowling (the post-boy who drove some of the par,
tics from the Colonnade-hotel,) and Mi.. Edmund Scott, the
surihero.nly important part of Mr. Scott's testimony, not al-
ready before the public, was that which related to the second,
the fatal shut. At first he did not perceive that either was
hit The deceased walked towards him—about six paces.
He bad his left hand on his right side; and witness thinks
he had the pistol in his hand. He said to witness, "1 sin
wounded." He looked towards witness, and pointed to the
spot, but did not speak. Witness told • him he was exceed-
ing!y sorry for it, and added, " God bless you." The deceased
said, "Good bye, old fellow." Witness then assisted to lay
the deceased upon the grass. The seconds and Mr. Eliot
then walked up, and asked if the wound was serious, and he
told them it was a fatal wound. Mr. Broughton also asked
him what he bad better do, and witness told him be had bet-
ter leave the ground as soon as he could. The deceased died
in about ten minutes. Nothing could be done for him. The
wound was a small one, about the size of nu inch, and was
such as would be occasioned by a pistol bullet. He had no
doubt that wound was the cause of his death.
I3y Mr. Justice Vaughan.—He had no doubt that the ob-
ject of the conference with the parties was to effect a reconci-
liation.

Examination continued.—Mr. Mirfin would not hear of a
reconciliation, but insisted upon having a second shot.

The court.—Did you hear anything—about an apology?—
Witness: I did not hear positively what occurred, but I have
no doubt that Mr. Eliot offered to make an apology. This
was communicated to the deceased, and he said he would ac-
cept of no•apology but a written one, and this being refused
he insisted upon a second shot. The pistols were then again
handed to them. . . .

Mr. Baron Vaughan said it was a pity the seconds did
not interfere and prevent Mr. Mirtin from proceeding fur-
ther, and have either withdrawn themselves or the principals.
Examination continued.—The pistols were fetched after
Mr. Mirfin said he would have a second shot. Witness told
the deceased that his hat had been shot through, and he took
it off and looked at it but made no remark. Another pistol
was then delivere'd to each of them—those were the pistols
belonging to the deceased—and they again fired upon the
same signal. Eliot's pistol appeared to go off first. He dis-
tinctly heard the report of two pistols, the second following
apnea: 11, l r.
tto Phillips
b e
con
t skedduet e
dthwe
the first almost immediately.
twhi tyna
ews•sh catnhde rr
etghuel
adr
andity, di did nothe
said that it did.

Mr. Justice Alderson.—l believe you state that the unfor-
tunate deceased met his death from one of his own pistols ?
Witness: He did.

Mr. Baron Vaughan then addressed Mr. Chambers, and
said that there had not been any proof that the prisoners
were aiding and abetting.—Mr. Chambers submitted he had
proved that they were sanctioning the proceeding by their
presence.

The court said they must be proved to be present, aiding
and assisting, at the moment the shot was fired. The court

did not wish to stop the case, but merely to direct the atten-
tion of the counsel to the material point to be proved.
Henry Lee, the groom to Eliot, eroved that he saw the
prisoners at the spot before the duel took place, but his
evidence was not material.—Two other witnesses were
called, but their evidence did not go to show that the prisoners
were actually present aiding and abetting the commission of
the offence.—This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Adolphus appeared to ask the court whether there was
a necessity for him to address the jury ?—The court said that
it thought it ought to be a question for the jury, whether or
not the prisoners were present under such circumstances as
to give a countenance to the act which had been committed.
Mr. Adolphus then addressed the jury, and said that he was
not young or rash enough to contend that the proceeding of
duelling was legal, but he hoped the jury would look dispas-
sionately at all the circumstances of the case. He knew it
was not enough to make the proceeding legal to say that
great personages, both legal and others, had resorted to it,
but still that would show the feeling of society, and that
persons of great legal knowledge, who it might be supposed
would be the first to uphold the laws of the country, had very
frequently resorted to that proceeding. He begged the jury
to recollect that the prisoners were charged with the crime of
murder for merely being present. .The learned counsel then
proceeded to mention several cases of a similar kind, and one
of Captain McNamara, in which he had killed his antagonist,
but the jury, believing that he had received such provocation
as no man of honour could bear, tbougnt he was justified in
adopting the course he did, and they acquitted him. He then
proceeded to contend that there was no evidence to show that
his client Webber, had any guilty knowledge of what was
going

M. C. Phillips then proceeded to address the Jury in a
powerful speech on the part of the prisoner Young. He said
that when he came into Court that morning he did so with
fear and trembling, from what he had seen published in the
newspapers in respect to the unfortunate transaction with
which the prisoners at the bar were identified. It had been
stated—and the calumny had been most industriously circu-
lated through the medium of the press—that some one said
to Eliot, the principal, " You have nothing to fear, it's all
right," and the inference drawn from this was, that there
lied been something unfair in the duel; but had anything of
lhe kind been proved? On the contrary, had it not been
clearly established in evidencethat everything that had taken
place-had been according to the nicest rules of what was
called the code of honour? The Learned Gentleman then
adverted in a strain of indignation to the permission given
by parties in authority to the existence of such disgraceful
places as the Saloon, where the unfortunate broil which led
to the fatal transaction, which all deplored, took place. The
learned gentleman having closed an able and eloquent ad-
dress, concluded by calling witnesses.
Several highly respectable persons then came forward and
gave both prisoners excellent characters for mildness and
general kindness. It appeared from the testimony of these
witnesses that the prisoner Webber is the son of a wine-
merchant at the west end of the' town, and that the prisoner
Young is the son of a gentleman living on his private pro-
perty. - .
_ _

Mr. Justice Vaughan then proceeded to sum up the evi-
dence, in doing which he observed, that there were some
peculiarities in this case which made it differ from others
that had come under his notice. One of these was the num-
ber of persons engaged in it. The prisoners at the bar, al-
though present, were not called upon, it would appear, to
officiate as seconds, as there were other persons present who
seemed to have acted in that capacity, for they measured the
ground, loaded the pistols, and gave the necessary signals;
but the question for the consideration of the Jury was not
whether the prisoners were seconds at the duel—for if the
Jury believed that they went down to the place of meeting
with the parties engaged in the melancholy transaction to
further it, then, although :hey might nut have acted as
seconds, by loading the pistols, or doing any act usually per-
formed by seconds, still they would be guilty of "aiding and
abetting," and liable to all the consequences of such a posi-
tion. If, however, they had any doubt that either of the
prisoners were present on the occasion, then they ought to
give them the benefit of such doubt, and acquit them.
The Jury then retired, and in about twenty minutes re-
turned, finding both prisoners "Guilty." The Foreman
then said that he was requested by his brother jurors to say,
that they were not influenced in the decision they had come
to by any paragraph which had appeared in the newspapers.
He was also instructed to state to the Court, that the Jury
felt great abhorrence at the conduct of Mr. Scott in the en-
tire transaction, and their great regret that he had not been
placed at the bar with the other prisoners. Mr. Justice
Vaughan said he perfectly concurred in this last observation
of the Jury.
Mr. Chambers begged, before the Learned Judges pro-
ceeded to pass sentence on the prisoners, to say that the
prosecutor, the brother of the deceased, recommended them
to the merciful consideration of the Court.
Mr. Justice Vaughan.—We intend that the verdict shall
be recorded, by which the prisoners lives will be spated.
The Learned Judge, then addressing the prisoners, observed,
"It is our intention to recommend that you should be sub-
jected to a term of imprisonment. You are now in the hands
of the Execttive, and any application for a mitigation of the
sentence to be pronounced upon you must be directed to the
Secretary. for the Home Department."
The prisoners were then taken from the bar.