Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1851-08-18
VARIETY.


lhe last number Of Blackwood's Maru-
zino under the head OF "Modern Siato
trials" contains, instead ofthe usual month.
y chapter, only paragraph in the nature
Of an apology or retraxt for part OF its
former report ofa trial Of Capt. Helsharn
Tor murder. ltappeors. from other sources.
that a suit iorlihei has been brought arains,
the proprietors of ,hemagazine. on account
of portion of tins report. aud settled in
court by their agreement to make public
apology. prepared BY the counsel Of Capt.
Helsham. The circumstances orthe case
are interesting. and the alledged libelturn-
cd upon point ofetiquette. rule ofhon-
or in the duello. which has never, as wo
believe. been adopted in this country.-
Capt. Helsham had shot Lieut.. Crowiher.
IN duel. at Boulogne, in France. He rc-
NAMED abroad in consequence for some
years but having been advised that tho
British law could not affect him for an act
committed abroad, returned to England.
But his counsel had overlooked a special
statute. which authorizes the arres, and
trial IA England Of any British subject
charged with murder or man-sla,tchtcr
within or without the British dominions.---
lie was arrested and put on trial. but uc-
quilted. The report IN Blackwood made
many years after the acquittal, states that
the prosecution had in their possession n
"damiiing piece of ovidcuce," viz: That
the accused had passed nearly the whole Of
the nightprevious tothc duel in practising
with the pistol.
For this publication Captain Hclsham
brought an action for damages which came
up IN June for trial, aud was settled, as wo
have stated, by the apology contained in
Blackwood; which states that the proprio-
tors withdrawevc-y imputa,ion upon Capt.
Helsham Of anything like unfairness in re.
ference to the duel, land uvow their disbelief
in the statement Of his having practiscd pis-
tol-shooting in view Of the meeting
The conversations between the counsel
for the defendants and presiding Judges,
before whom the trial was had. show an
unhesitaiing opinion that practising with
the weapon after a challenge, or with the
view to fight, is an aggraya,ion Of the legal
offence; and the allegation that party did
so is a libel The Chief Justice sad: at
would be an awful aggravation Of the
crime that the offender sat up oil night
practising his weapons" Justice Maule
said that it would not justify such libel
to show that the accused had fought duel,
when the allegation wasthat he had fought
II IN a "malicious and unfair Manner" and
tho Chief Justice, in giving Judgment on a
demurrer, said
"Thc libel mentioned circumstances 10
show that there was not only malice con-
ducing TO the death of the deceased, but
that murder was in the plaintiffs contcm-
pla'ion when he engaged in the duel IL
would be doing serious injury TO the pub
llc morals to hold that itmadono difference
IN public estimation whether a duel had
been fought unfairly or not 1t was truo
that it would not do for the court to coun-
'enance any such distinction on u trial for
murder by duelIing but a trial for libel.
IN making such charge, was different
matter, and would be estimated differently
by the public
In this country no such distinction is
made, that we huve heard of