remain. To dwell upon the nature of your offence is unnecessary. It is contrary to every interest of society, that public newspapers should become the vehicles of private scandal; and the attack complained of here is peculiar ly unpardonable, for it is made upon one who has gone to her account, and you might have allowed the dead to sleep in peace. The Court, having taken into consideration all the circumstances of your case, doth order and adjudge, that you, R. T. Weaver, do

pay to the King a fine of 100%; that you, T. Arrowsmith and W. Shackell, pay each a fine of 500l.; that each and all of you be kept in the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsea for the space of nine months; that you then find two securities, each in the sum of 250.; that you enter into your own personal recognizances in the sum of 500l. to keep the peace for five years; and that you be further imprisoned until the same fines be paid, and recognizances entered into."

MESSRS CHRISTIE AND TRail, for THE DUEL WITH MR SCOTT.

Old Bailey, April 13.

The Lord Chief-Justice Abbot and Mr Justice Park having taken their seats on the bench, Messrs Christie and Trail, who appeared to be about twenty-five years of age, then surrendered in form to Mr Shelton, the clerk of arraigns. They were immediately placed at the bar.

The Lord Chief-Justice said, that, on referring to the indictment, he observed the name of a third person, Mr Patmore, included therein, and wished to know if that gentleman was also forthcoming to take his trial.

Mr Gurney said, he understood that gentleman was not now in Court.

Mr Justice Park desired that Mr Patmore should be called on his recognizances.

Mr Shelton replied, that no recognizances had been entered into by the parties.

The indictment, charging the pri

soners at the bar with the wilful mur der of John Scott, Esq. on the 16th of February last, at Chalk Farm, was read to them, and they severally plead. ed Not Guilty.

The Jury being sworn,

Mr Walford rose to state the case for the prosecution. He commenced by assuring the Jury, that it was diffi cult for him to find adequate language to convey any idea of the painful feel. ings with which he rose to state the evidence he had to adduce in support of this indictment against the gentlemen at the bar. It was impossible for him, when he recollected the rank in society in which these gentlemen moved, and when he reflected upon the fatal consequences which might ensue to them upon this trial-it was, he re peated, impossible for him to behold their situation without emotion. The man who, standing there, could do so, must have firmer nerves than he pos sessed. He should, however, endeavour to discharge the painful duty which devolved upon him, as clearly and as succinctly as he was enabled to

do by the instructions which he held in his hand. He must, however, pre7 mise his statement of the facts of the case, by entreating the Jury to dismiss altogether from their minds all previous statements which had reached them respecting this melancholy transaction. He trusted they were fully sensible that their verdict must alone be founded upon the evidence which would this day be legally submitted for their consideration. That could alone be the proper and legitimate source of the information upon which they would be warranted in acting. This prosecution was, he said, instituted by the relatives of the deceased. In bringing it forward, they were actuated alone by an anxiety to have the matter calmly and deliberately investigated. They disclaimed all vindictive feeling, and were only anxious that the facts should be examined before the proper authorities, and such conclusions drawn from them as the law authorised. It so happened, that of the nature or extent of the provocation which had led to this unhap. py affair, the Jury must remain uninformed. Upon that part of the transaction he had no evidence to offer. The deceased Mr Scott was a gentle man well known in the literary world; and at the time when this unfortunate affair happened, was editor of a wellknown periodical work called "The London Magazine." Mr Christie, one of the gentlemen at the bar, was, he understood, a conveyancer. The other gentleman, Mr Trail, was also of the profession of the law, and a barrister. He had already informed them they must remain ignorant of what had passed between the principals in this unhappy affair; whatever it was, it probably occurred in secret, in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of its being made matter of evidence. From what would appear before them, they would find that a medical gentleman, of the name of Pettigrew, re

siding in Spring-Gardens, was requested by Mr Patmore to meet him and Mr Scott the same night at ChalkFarm, in his capacity as a surgeon. He went, according to the direction of Mr Patmore, to the Hampstead road in a post-chaise, with Mr Morris, his pupil. When they came to the ave nue leading from the Hampstead-road to Chalk-Farm, they alighted from the chaise, and after passing through the avenue scended the hill behind the house. Mr Morris, who went first, would inform them that he thought he heard a shot fired as he ascended the hill. It did not appear that Mr Pettigrew heard this shot, but they both distinctly heard the knocking and priming of pistols, and they observed four or five gentlemen standing in the field beyond the hedge, two of them apart from the rest. At that moment they heard another shot, and saw one gentleman fall. They immediately proceeded over the hedge into the field, where the parties were, and saw Mr Scott on the ground, and a gentleman, whom they supposed to be Mr Christie, speaking to him, in extreme distress and agitation. They heard Mr Scott say that all was fair, and the other gentleman who was speaking to him remarked, with great emotion, that it was a pity he should have been permitted to fire a second time, having fired his first pistol down the field. The attention of the medical gentle. men was then directed to Mr Scott, and Mr Pettigrew thought that the best step he could take was to have him removed to town, and he set out himself to Mr Scott's lodgings to prepare for his reception. After waiting in town some time, he was surprised that Mr Scott had not arrived, and he concluded, what ultimately proved to be the fact, that he was found too weak for removal. He immediately returned to Chalk-Farm to see the deceased. In the course of that night,

Dr Darling, an eminent physician, was called to Chalk-Farm, to attend Mr Scott, and the latter made a communication to the Doctor, respecting what occurred on the ground, and the parties engaged in it; but, for reasons he would state, he should abstain from now relating that conversation. According to law, the declaration of a man believing himself to be dying, was evidence against a prisoner. The law held, that what was stated by a man on the brink of eternity, was equivalent to what was said on the solemnity of an oath; and, therefore, safe evidence for a jury. Now, a question would here arise, whether at the time Mr Scott made this declaration, there was reason to believe that he thought himself in a dying state. That he felt himself in great danger, was clear; but it would be for the Court to say, when Dr Darling was called, whether the deceased at the time felt his danger so imminent as to entitle his declaration to the force of legal evidence. He should therefore abstain from saying any thing more upon that point until they heard the witness. Mr Scott continued at Chalk-Farm from the night of Friday, the 16th of February, till he died. These were the circumstances which he had to detail to them in evidence ; and he should now say a few words upon the law of the case. If two parties quarrelled, and, in the heat of passion, or before their feelings had time to cool, and reason to resume her influence, went forth in a hostile manner towards each other, and that one of them lost his life, the law would deem it not murder, but manslaughter. But if (no matter what was the provocation or original circumstances at tending the quarrel) a sufficient time had elapsed between the provocation and the catastrophe, so as to afford presumption that the passions had cooled, then the law allowed no mitigation of its severity, and the parties

implicated incurred all the penalties of committing wilful murder. The law, which was framed to restrain the impetuosity of human passion, allowed no man to become the avenger of his own quarrel; the law provided redress for any injury that could be inflicted upon any man, and all were bound to resort to that law for redress.There remained but one consideration more, and that was, whether any doubts were entertained in the minds of the Jury as to the prisoners at the bar being the persons engaged in the transaction; if so, they were, of course, bound to acquit them. On this he had no expectation. It would rest with the Jury to take all the facts of the case into their most serious consideration, and to return that verdict which their own consciences, after mature deliberation, dictated.

The first witness was Mr Thomas Joseph Pettigrew. He had not, he said, been acquainted with the deceased, but he knew, for many years, Mr Patmore, who called upon him on Friday evening, the 16th February, and stated, that, in consequence of something which had arisen out of an affair between Mr Scott and Mr Lockhart, Mr Patmore requested him (Mr Pettigrew) to attend in the neighbour. hood of Chalk-Farm on the same even. ing. He went there, accordingly, in a post-chaise, accompanied by his pupil, W. B. Morris. He got to the lane leading to Chalk-Farm about eight o'clock on the same evening. It was moon-light. They proceeded through the lane towards the fields, and at last reached the top of the hill. He then saw some gentlemen in a field, two of them walking backwards and forwards, and two others by the side of the hedge. He then heard the knocking of pistols, the priming of them, and flashing of pans. Soon afterwards both pistols were fired. He heard the sound, and saw the

consulted together for a short time, when his lordship delivered the opinion of the Court, that the statement could not be received, as it did not appear that Mr Scott thought himself at the point of death at the time when he made the declaration; he had been told, that his wound was not necessarily mortal, unless the intestines were perforated. There might have been still a hope that that had not taken place which rendered the wound mortal. The declaration could not, therefore, be received in the sense of that of a dying man.

Mr Walford having closed his case on the part of the prosecution,

Mr Gurney left his place in Court, and communicated for some moments with the defendants.

The Lord Chief-Justice then informed Mr Christie, that the period for his defence had arrived.

Mr Christie, in a voice almost inaudible, from emotion, said, that he should merely call witnesses to his general character and habits of life.

Mr Trail, to a similar intimation from the bench, replied in the same terms used by Mr Christie.

Mr Gurney then called, successive. ly, the Reverend Thomas Griffiths, Mr Robert Baker, surgeon, Mr Dubois, Mr Serrier, Mr Groome, Mr W. Ford, Mr Wately, and Mr Amos, barristers; Dr Jenkins, Master of Baliol College; the Reverend W. Nicholl, Mr Tate, the Reverend W. Knight, Mr R. Swain, attorney-atlaw, Mr Herring, conveyancer, Mr Russell, law student, the Reverend J. Williams, Mr W. James, Mr E. Blount, Mr W. Colmar, special pleader, Mr Connell, and Mr John Balfour, M.P., and Dr Geldhardt. The majo rity of these gentlemen deposed to long and intimate acquaintance with both the defendants; and all bore witness to the general humanity and benevolence of their dispositions.

The Lord Chief-Justice then, after

stating to the Jury the nature of the indictment, proceeded to instruct them as to the law of the case. The accusation charged three persons as aiding and concurring in the death of Mr Scott; two individuals only appeared; but if the Jury believed that the individuals at the bar were really two of those who had aided in the commission of the crime, it mattered not by whose particular hand the pistol had been discharged. The distinction, in cases of duels, between manslaughter and murder, had been very clearly and cor rectly marked out by the learned Counsel for the prosecution. If par ties, in heat of blood, went out and fought with deadly weapons, then the law, allowing for the frailty of human nature, deemed the party killing guilty of manslaughter only; but if, yielding to a false notion of honour, they went out upon deliberation and in cool blood, to fight; then the death of one man fixed the crime of murder upon all concerned; upon seconds (frequently the more culpable parties) as well as upon principals. The first question then was-Were the prisoners at the bar two of the parties known to have been in the field at the time when the shot was fired? and was the duel fought in heat of blood or upon deliberation? His lordship then recapitulated the main points of evidence, and upon that evidence left the fact of identity to the Jury. It was possible, he said, that the real perpetrators of the crime might have escaped from the field before the arrival of Mr Pettigrew, and that the prisoners at the bar might have appeared accidentally at the moment; still the onus of shewing that such had been the case lay in some measure upon them. Upon the second point, his lordship continued, the feeling under which (assuming the identity) the duel had taken place, there was little in proof before the Jury. Of the time or place at which the quarrel originated, there was no evidence; and although