The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-03-05 00:00:00

been call,

,sappearec

panied by several military Mends, who, at the

inesiger, we
trial.
Cant

allow.ed to remain with him during tl

geed at the I

—John Doug-

las, you are indicted, for that you on the 12th of September
last, at the parish of Wandsworth, with a certain pistol
loaded with gunpowder ancla leaden bullet, at and against
Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, did feloniously and unlaw-
..

fully shoot, with intent thereby feloniously and wilfully and
of malice aforethought to kill and- murder the said Harvey
Garnett Phipps Tuckett. On the second count you are
charged with shooting at Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett
as aforesaid, with inter -

hereby- to maim and disable him.
On the third count, with shooting at the said Harvey Gar-
nett Phipps Tuckett with intent to do him some grievous
bodily harm. Are you guilty or not guilty ? •
The prisoner answered in a firm and distinct voice " Not
Guilty."

stice

hether there were an

in tile ne-

!eded in his own person to

for the most part,

lduced at the trial c

Lord Cardigan

ifter the conclusion of the evidenc

as addres

saying he was

a loss to know for what
appeared on behalf of the prosecution—a
gretted, because it had imposed
the somewhat difficult and

cause,

y much re
.rued jud,

us task of exatninin

he witnesses, in or

er to bring

'ly as pa

before them (the

iausted, it remained

Vir. Justice Williams) to remark, that there was no
übtuitted to the jury. Not that he
io luel fouiolit. They were as well
t a duel had taken place on the

whsatever to be

ere was no

f September

nd at the place in question—'

as also

le or no moral doubt that

etioned were

Teated in that duel; but

they (the jur3) were aware,

that the indict

ith having

Ilarvey Garnett Phipy

;, with int

t thereby to destroy h

wound and

essential that a man
!rvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett shotild
Al who was shot at on the day .in
Of the fact there was

be proved to

g,e) had spoken

to which the witness Dar

had-alluded, be-

at it was, to a certain extent, evidence against
ut as it appeared that he (Captain Douglas)
id at the time the card was delivered

to the witness, that could not fix the prisoner as being a party
to the production of the card ; • but if it could the circum-
stance would not have the object of forwarding the present
inquiry. He (Mr. Justice Williams) had seen the card, and

The name upon the card

as captain Harvey
The name of the person shot at, as described in
ant, was, therefore, without proof. Furthermore,
no person had sworn to Captain Douglas being on the spot
when and where the duel was fought. Nay, on the contrary,
Mrs. Dann, on being questioned as to the identity of the
parties, said she believed him (Captain Douglas) to be the
wounded man, Captain Tuckett. The only evidence was,
that three quarters of an hour afterwards this gentleman was
pointed out by Lord Cardigan, but there was no proof of the
►dentity of the prisoner, nor of the person who was shot at on
the day in question. In short the evidence had totally failed
to substantiate the charge laid in the indictment, and.there-
fore the T

3ust be acquitted.
le jury without hesitation pronounced a verdict of Not
Guilty, and the prisoner, after bowing to the judges and jury,
left th court in company v

ers who had rernainei