The following witnesses were called for the defence:

Mr. James Fleining, merchant and accountant in Kirkcaldy. I am well acquainted with Mr. Morgan. Saw two letters from Morgan to Landale (one of which he recognized in Court.) Deceased said he was dissatisfied with a letter received from Mr. Landale respecting some difference about the bank. He told me that in consequence of a second evasive letter, he should put his cane across Mr. Landale's shoulders the first time they met. He also said that he intended to challenge him, but was afraid to give the challenge, as he understood that by law a challenger was liable to transportation-he therefore would take the other course, that of insulting him. I had once or twice some confidential conversation with Mr. Morgan respecting Mr. Landale, about a 5000l. cash account granted by the bank to Mr. Landale, and something about a loan of 3000l. wished to be raised by Mr. Landale.

Robert Stocks, Esq. of Abden. -I am well acquainted with Mr. Landale, and have been so for 25 years. I consider him a most orderly and correct gentleman, and never found him disposed to quarrel. Some months before the duel, I had a conversation with Mr. Morgan about a cash credit Mr. Landale had obtained from the bank of 3000l. Mr. Morgan spoke of Mr. Landale having attempted to raise other loans, particularly on a bleachfield. This was a voluntary communication. Mr. Morgan continued to say, "I wish all may be well with Mr. Landale." This excited suspi

cions in my mind which did not exist before, as to Mr. Landale's solvency and credit. In consequence of this communication, I caused 1000l. to be taken up from Mr. Landale, which belonged to my brother's family.

Gavin Hadden, Esq. Provost of Aberdeen, had been long acquainted with Mr. Landale, and found him a man of the greatest probity and honour, of mild and gentle manners, and most unlikely to provoke quarrels.

Walter Fergus, Esq. of Stratmore, late Provost of Kirkcaldy, had known Mr. Landale from his infancy. Esteemed him as a man of strict honour and every way a gentleman. He associated with him all his life, and scarcely ever saw his temper ruffled, There had been rumours against Mr. Landale's credit these two or three months past; before that it was quite unimpeached.

Mr. Moneypenny, of the Custom-house, Kirkcaldy, has had occasion to know Mr. Landale as a gentleman of much mildness and honourable feeling.

Mr. Bennet, one of the sccretaries of the Bank of Scotland, identified a letter received from Messrs. Morgan by the Bank of Scotland. The letter recommended Mr. Landale as a gentleman of undoubted credit and usefuluess as a merchant and manufacturer: considered his business as a desirable object.

Mr. Wood then addressed the jury for the crown.

Mr. Jeffrey made an eloquent and elaborate defence for his client. That the bare fact of taking away life in a duel constituted murder he would deny. He deni

ed that it could be law, in so far as it was inconsistent with the views and opinions of the strictest moralists, with the law itself, and no less so with the practice of the law. On the contrary, it was a remedy for injuries for which law tribunals could afford no redress. It was no doubt a lamentable remedy for those who became its victims, but it was viewed as a comparatively light one in the practice of the law. While the more honourable and refined species of feelings exist in the bosom, quarrels and grievances will sometimes unfortunately occur, which no law is calculated to redress, and under which no man could find existence tolerable. In history we find, that during the ages of barbarism such feelings gave rise to cruel feuds and assassinations, and were greatly to be deprecated. In our more cultivated and enlightened days it was seldom, except in cases of peremptory necessity, that decision of differences by shedding blood was resorted to; and then it is conducted generally with such frankness, openness, and gallantry, as to do away in a great degree that imputation of malice which is necessary to constitute the positive crime of murder. The law against it had been abrogated, in practice at least, and indeed it was no longer. At one time it might in the 14th and 15th centuries, from the romantic spirit of chivalry which prevailed, rencontres of the kind were so frequent and common, that almost every state in Europe framed statutes for its suppression. But the practice of But the practice of duelling was now remarkably rare. During the reign of his late ma

jesty, not more than 200 authenticated duels had taken place in England, Scotland, and Ireland ; for these, only from 20 to 23 trials had been instituted, and not one conviction had ensued, except in a very few instances, in which it evidently appeared that the practice was abused by making a challenge a pretext for accomplishing murderous purposes. During the last 150 years, not one conviction had taken place in Scotland. Now our blood was not colder, nor our sense of honour more obtuse, than that of our neighbours; but the reason was, that the investigations uniformly terminated in the developement of circumstances rather honourable than otherwise to the survivers. They were therefore acquitted. Thus far he had enlarged as to the practice of the law; he should again refer to the subject as it affected morality. He was able to adduce the opinion not only of the strictest moralists, but even of men no less eminent for piety, in vindication of the practice in a moral point of view. He would enumerate Dr. Johnson, the greatest moralist of his age, and equally remarkable for his religious austerity and strict sense of propriety-Lord Kaimes, whose authority and reasoning on such subjects could scarcely be called in question, and who had said that injuries will be inflicted and sustained which, till human opinion be altered, no law can redress ; and in which the injured party is justified in having recourse to challenge for reparation to his wounded feelings-Dr. A. Ferguson, whose conduct uniformly comported with pure religion and strict moral principle; who was

appointed to the ethical chair, for the purpose of forming the minds and morals of the young, and rendering them the ornaments of society. All these distinguished individuals held the same opinions. The inference of the murder in such cases was quite irreconcileable alike with the fundamental and improved principles of law. An act committed out of necessity, from force, from intimidation, or under mental aberration, could not be construed as a crime. Unless the facts could convince the jury that the deed was maliciously committed, it was of no consequence what his learned friend opposite might denominate law. Neither was it enough that the evidence might bear out his individual notions of law; but it must be such evidence as could satisfy the jury. It was ridiculous to say that the law constituted the crime, and that the fact implied malice-it was evidence of malice only that could confirm the fact, and render it criminal. He had spoken of the paucity of convictions; and he could assure them, that it was not on account of the ignorance of juries, or their disqualification to discriminate, that this had arisen. Juries, on cases of duelling in this country, had been composed of men rather of superior intellect. The practice of the law, therefore, notwithstanding the doctrines of judges or men of law, had been universally established by intelligent, discriminating and conscientious men, in opposition to the principle laid down, that killing in a duel inferred murder, unless accompanied by circumstances proving deadly malice. The learn

ed gentleman then quoted several instances, from that of Glengary, in 1798, down to the affair between Mr. Stuart, of Duncarn, and Sir A. Boswell, in 1822. In all these cases the survivors were acquitted, and in most of them by the recommendation of the Judges. In one of these, the present Lord President had said, "Juries have formerly exercised their discretion; so may you, and find a similar verdict, if you see cause from the circumstances." He would call upon the Jury to give this the weight it was entitled to: this was not the opinion of a panel's counsel, expressed in a pleading from the bar, but the recommendation of a Judge from the bench.

Lord Gillies.-Gentleman of the Jury-I shall say little to you on this occasion, not because I think it an unimportant case, but because so respectable a jury as I now see before me can need little aid from me. I may say, that nothing I mean at present to address to you is intended to weaken the effect of what you have just heard from the counsel for the panel. Here we have nothing to do with the laws of honour; we have to consult the law of the land only, but that law is a law of reason, and liberally accommodated to human feelings. The general rule of the law is, that killing in a duel is murder; but that admits of qualifications, and I consider that the panal at the bar is within the qualified rule of the law. You cannot yet have forgotten, gentlemen-if you can ever forget it— the opening statement so powerfully made for the prisoner; and and here I am bound to say, that in no case which ever came under

observation could less blame be attached to the survivor in a duel, than in that of which the facts are now before you. The character you have heard testified to, by so many respectable and intelligent gentlemen this day, is as high as is possible for man to receive; and I consider that throughout this affair the panel has acted up to it.

His whole demeanour has been manly, temperate, and fair. Mr. Landale did not challenge on receiving the first insulting letter, not thinking the laws of honour applicable in such a case; but his antagonist thought differently, and evidently forced on the duel. In all the four cases mentioned by Mr. Jeffrey, the juries acquitted the survivors, although in all these the fact of killing in a duel was clearly proved or admitted. The defence made at each of these cases I think was, that a malicious purpose ought to be clearly proved; and so it is laid here in four different parts of the indictment, but in no instance has that been substantiated. You have clear and undeniable evidence of the reluctance of the panel to fight, and that his great and sole object was the reparation of his honour and character. It has been said, indeed, that from the fact of killing, the law presumes malice;

but this is a presumption which may be rebutted by evidence, and of the sufficiency of that evidence in that case, you, gentlemen, must be the judges. The great provocation endured was another alleviating point. The insult sustained led to the contempt and scorn of the world; the provocation was permanent and continuous; and the wound thereby caused, the lapse of time would only augment and render more intolerable. I will not trouble you farther than to say, that in all the cases quoted, if the juries were just and reasonable in acquitting the prisoners, I do not see how the panel at this bar can justly and reasonably be condemned. Gentlemen, this is all I have to say. If you think this case falls under the general rule, you may convict; if you think it falls under the milder construction adopted by former juries, you will return a verdict of not guilty.

The Jury without retiring, immediately and unanimously found the panel Not Guilty.

His Lordship congratulated Mr. Landale on the result of the trial, and expressed much pleasure in the duty which now devolved upon him, of dismissing him from the bar with a character so honourable and unsullied.

This vessel arrived at this port on the eleventh day of June last. She is documented as belong

ing to Michaelson and Benedict of Stockholm.

She left Sweden on the twenty

sixth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, with a Swedish register, and all the papers necessary to constitute her the exclusive private property of Swedish subjects.

She sailed from Europe, bound to Carthagena, a port in the republic of Colombia. She entered and cleared from that port as a Swedish vessel-arrived and entered at the port of New-York, in that character; and remains here with all the original evidences of Swedish title, in the exclusive possession, and under the exclusive control, of the agent of the Swedish owners.

She is now libelled in this court for provisions and necessaries furnished at the instance of her commander, since her arrival in this port; and if she be what she is represented and appears to be, she is undoubtedly liable for these claims.

Under ordinary circumstances I should not think it necessary to look farther into the title or character of this vessel, than the documents to which I have referred, but should consider them settled and established, according to the rules and principles upon which Courts of Admiralty are known to proceed.

The Consul General of the Republic of Colombia has, however, interposed a claim on behalf of his government, founded on an alleged transfer of this vessel by Moses Isaacs, on the seventeenth day of July last.

It has, therefore, become proper to examine by what authority Mr. Isaacs undertook to transfer this vessel, and what has been the effect of his acts.

By the evidence and papers before the Court, it seems that some time previous to the month of June, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, the vessel in question became the subject of a negotiation between the Swedish owners, Michaelson and Benedict, and B. A. Goldschmidt & Co. of London.

We are not furnished with the means of understanding fully the nature and extent of this negotiation, but that portion of it which is disclosed will be best understood by an examination of the documents and correspondence, in the order of their dates.

We have nothing that tends to elucidate or explain the transaction anterior to the seventh June, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five.

On that day, we find a paper executed by B. A. Goldschmidt, & Co. referring to an agreement, which had been concluded between the officers and crew of the ship Tapperheten and Count Van Rogen, and undertaking and engaging to provide the commander, officers and crew of the said ship, who sail from a port in Sweden, with a passage from a port in Colombia back to Europe, without any expense to them.

The fulfilment of this agreement by Goldschmidt is guaranteed by Michaelson and Benedict in another instrument bearing the same date.

Then follows another paper executed on the same tenth June, by Michaelson and Benedict, entitled a power of attorney, authorising Messrs. B. A. Goldschmidt & Co. or their assignees, to receive the ship Tapperheten, at the hands of