The Sun. — 1845-07-14 (London, England)

TYE DUEL AT PORT SUOUTH.  Although it is known that the parties concerned in this lamen,able occurrence will not surrender to take their trials at the present aisizes, yet, as the depositions have been returned, and a bill of indictment prepared for presentation to the grand jury in the usual manner, Mr Baron Platt made some observations to that body upon the subject upon the present occasion. His Lordship observed that the law up6n the subject of duelling was extremely clear, and had been distinctly laid down in the several text books upon the subject. His Lordship then proceeded to read from Russell upon Crimes the several principles upon the subject which were applicable to the present case; and the general effect of which was, that a party who had caused the death of another, under circumstances which disclosed a deliberate purpose upon the part of the slayer to gratify a feel• ing of revenge by inflicting grievous bodily mischief with a deadly weapon, was guilty of murder. With regard to the case where the infliction of death was preceded by the circumstances of great provocation having been given to the slayer by the deceased, it hail been laid down that in order to reduce the offence in such cases from murder to mansl:ught,r, it was essential that the wounding, battery, &c.. should have been inflicted immediately upon the occurrence of the provocation. for if there were a sufficient coding time for passion to subside and reason to interpose, and the person so provoked afterwards kills the other, this is deliberate revenge, and not heat of blood, and accordingly amounts to murder. If, therefore, two persons deliberately fight a duel, and one of them be killed, the other and his second are guilty of murder, no matter how grievous the provocation, or by which party it was given, and even the second of the deceased is guilty of the same crime, as being present aiding and abetting. It may perhaps be suggested that, in the case under consideration, the woend inflicted in the duel was not the immediate cause of death, and that it had, in fact, resulted from the surgical operation. But this would not be an available defence, if the wound originally given was mortal, and if the effect of the surgical treatment had only been to hasten the decease. The jury would take care, as it was their duty to do, that they should not suffer their minds to be in any degree influenced by anything which they had previously read or heard upon any part of the case, and although they may not be able, upon the evidence before them, to decide with perfect certainty as to the real character of the offence, yet if they considered that there were different grounds for putting the matter into a course of more minute and searching examination, their duty would be to return the bill. and leave the merits of the case to be finally deciiied upon a full investigation o! all o l,lthertwofacts in anddietthmeelnatws.for The jury having retired, returned common larcenies, which occupied the Court fur the rest of the day. Mr. Justice Erle sat at Nisi Prius, and disposed of two cases totally destitute of interest or importance to anybody except the parties immediately concerned Hertford July 12.