The Sun. — 1823-06-09 (London, England)

SINGULAR CASE.—The following singular case occurred at Paris a short tine ago :—Two privates belonging to the litianis, who were tipsy, were quarrelling in a narrow passage with some of the citizens, who were equally tipsy, when a third private of the same regiment came up, and forcibly dragged one of his comrades into the street, keeping fast hold of him there to prevent his fighting. In the mean time the other soldier, being nearly overpowered by his opponents, drew his sword, when, unfortunately, one of them rushed upon the point of the sword, and was killed upon the spot. The town-guard was called in and arrested the soldiers. The Colonel of the regiment to whom these men belonged, obtained a pardon for them • but, owing to the confused testimony of the witnesses, who confounded the actions of the diGrent soldiers, the soldier who had been prevented from taking part in the quarrel, was described in the pardon as the person who had com. mitted the murder. This man was advised to confess himself the murderer, or otherwise the pardon would be of no use,. which he accordingly did on his examination. This avowal made the matter worse ; for as it had been deposed that this soldier had been detained in the street, the Judges concluded, from his then confession, that he had killed the man, that he must have done it intentionally, and not in self-defence. They therefore refused to confirm th, letters of pardon, and the poor man was on the point of bein condemned to death for an ace which he had not committed, when his companion' who' was really guilty of the murder, came forward and disclosed the whole truth, producing witnesses to prove it. There are a number of caious circumstances in this affair, with a mixture of sincerity and heroism such as would give an air of romance to the whole, if we did not know it to be a well-attested fact. It is one among the interesting examples which have occurred but too often, of the awful suite in which any, the best of' characters, may be placed when it stands alone against the testimony of others, and in the midst of suspicious circumstances. —At the same time it should impress upon the mind of every Judge and Jury the fallibility of human judgment, and the necessity for the greatest care and circumspection's before they venture to pronounce any man guilty without the strongest possible evidence against him, even if it come from his own mouth ; and also the duty incumbent on them to sift every .part of the testimony, particularly, in these days when there have been so many shocking instances of witnesses swearing away the lives or reputations of men, whose characters, howeverpre. eminent, have not been sufficient to save them from the united evidence upon oath, of a conspiracy against them. Before such evidence can be safely taken, the Judge and Jury ought not to be content with the regular ordinary proof that the witnesses are not bad characters,—they ought to be persuaded that they lira good.—and, in the present times, that they are men of sonic religion ; or what is an oath to thuetutitivieftthheery aarse tboolsreir andeen p artful enough to lay a plot, so well . them front the punishment of perjury ?..-(British Monitor, June 13.)