The Sun. — 1847-10-12 (London, England)

BEAVVALLON. It cannot be so speedily forgotten that the quarrel between these young men arose amidst the frivolities of a disreputable reunion, and that the casual difference which had for a moment interrupted the rattle of the dice-box and the pleasantries of a licentious company, was followed within a period of a few hours by one of the most dastardly homicides ever perpetrated beyond the limits of the Boulevards. Although the chief stipulation of the duel was that neither of the principals should be acquainted with the pistols, it was satisfactorily proved that BEAVVALLON had on the fatal morning borrowed them from his brotherin-law, GARNIER DE CASSAGNAC, had practised with them at a target in the garden of his second, M. D'ECQUEVILLET, had thus rendered himself familiar with their capabilities, while his victim was shuddering in the raw atmosphere at daybreak, and had arrived at the rendezvous, steady of finger, resolute of will, unsparing in cruelty, unforgiving, unrelenting, ripe for murder, perjury, and calumny. BEADVALLON was a marksman of consummate skill—what is vulgarly called a dead shot. On arriving at the Bois de Boulogne, one of the surgeons (M. DE BERTRAND) inadvertently handled one of the weapons produced by D'Eccluzvimarr. The barrel was still warm with the explosions of gunpowder. He inserted his finger at the muzzle, and drew it forth blackened. Besides this decisive testimony, corroborative evidence was furnished by M. DE MRTNARD, a gentleman who had actually accompanied BEADVALLON to the garden of and witnessed the skilful practice of the duellist. Such were the prominent particulars of this transaction—particulars which of themselves would have been sufficient to render Bzauvaixon the objeet of universal abhorrence. Of themselves, we repeat, they would have been sufficient. There is ample reason for our regarding with the most unmitigated indignation a man who could so violate all the principles of morality, and bear under the garb of a petit maitre all the duplicity of a Valentino, and all the callousness of a Thug. But to these original transgressions against the Code of Christianity, BEAUTALLON has added a baseness and an audacity of vice such as has no immediate parallel in the records of criminality. To save his principal from condemnation under the charge of homicide, M. D'ECQUETILLET swore on the original trial which followed the destruction of DuJARRIER, that the account of the practice with the pistols at a target in his garden, on the morning of the duel, was, from first to last, a lie and a fabrication. The verdict given in by the jury upon this occasion pronounced the assertions of M. D'ECQUEVILLET to be altogether without foundation, and in consequence he was formally brought up to the bar a short time since on a second charge—a charge of perjury. During that inquiry it will be remembered that BEAUVALLON returned the generous false-swearing of his second by protesting that the declarations of D'ECQUEVILLEY were accurate throughout. D'ECQUEVILLET was convicted of perjury, and his principal was thereby prosecuted for a similar offence. After a preliminary investigation before the Chambre des Mises en Accusation, BEAUVALLON was brought to trial before the Court of Assize, and that trial has just terminated in the manner already mentioned. It is scarcely so much to the aggregate villanies of the accomplished murderer of DU‘ARRIER that we direct attention, as it is to the climax of his unprincipled career, as shown in the line of defence adopted by himself and his advocate. Were the imagination taxed to devise some contrivance whereby his infamy as a murderer and a perjurer could be enhanced, none could be conceived more entirely in accordance with the manifest turpitude of his disposition. Instead of directly endeavouring to rebut the assertions as to his familiarity with the pistols of