« 이전계속 »
bearing the introduction of such evidence could possibly have on the case, a distinguished lawyer answered that “a French jury would only tolerate duels among men of honor, and a man would forfeit his privilege to commit murder if it was believed he had ever been a thief.” Connected with this criminal accusation was a civil suit for damages, by the mother and nephews of the deceased.By the French law if a man wounds or kills another, he is liable to pay the wounded person, if he lives, or his next of kin, if he dies, damages for the civil injury done them. The criminal charge is submitted to a jury, of whom seven may return a verdict. The civil action, both as to law and fact, is decided at the same time by the court, without the intervention of a jury. The witnesses are not selected by one party and the other, because their testimony may be favorable to any particular view of the case, but for the purpose of obtaining all the information that can be had ; and hence it is that the judge, and not the counsel, proceeds to interrogate them with the sole design of establishing the truth. Forty-six witnesses were examined. The first was Alexander Dumas, the celebrated and popular writer of the day. Being asked, in the usual form, what his profession was, he answered “I should call myself a dramatic poet, if I was not in the birth place of Corneille.” This answer touched the hearts of the audience, for Rouen was the birth place of the two brothers Pierre and Thomas Cornielle, and, although more than two hundred years have elapsed since their birth, their memory is still honored by the inhabitants. Dumas was the common friend of both the parties engaged in the duel, and, being informed that the weapons selected were pistols, and knowing how unskilful Dujarier was, sent his son with him to a shooting gallery, where he was able to hit a mark as large as a man only twice in fourteen times! But the testimony of Dumas went strongly to the respectability of the parties as men of honor! The duel grew out of something which occurred at a dinner party given in one of the most celebrated establishments at the Palais Royal, at an expense of 55 francs ($11 00)
The President, on the trial, instructed the jury that to kill a man in a duel is murder by the law of France; that the fact of killing being proved by the voluntary discharge of a loaded pistol, the defendant was chargeable with the offence imputed to him ; but that the jury had a right to declare that it was done under alleviating circumstances, &c. After ten minutes absence, the jury returned their verdict in the following form : The foreman rising, and being asked, “ Is the accusation true?” answered, "upon "my honor and my conscience, before God and man, the “declaration of the jury is, No. The accused is not “guilty."
The arguments then commenced in relation to the civil suit for damages, which was tried by the court alone without a jury, and the difference in the result shows what is very common in this country in the trial of criminal cases, a wide difference of opinion between the court and jury. In the criminal prosecution the accused, we have seen, was acquitted by the jury; but in the civil suit the court awarded to the widow-mother, and the nephews of the deceased, the sum of 20,000 francs ($4000) damages, with costs, and ordered that Bouvallon, in case of default in payment, should be imprisoned two years.
We have already brought to the notice of the reader one celebrated witness, Mr. Alexandre Dumas. But another witness was examined who has since gained an equal celebrity, although of a character somewhat different. LOLA MONTES was examined as a witness. She was an artiste of the Theatre Port St. Martin, a Spaniard, who spoke French imperfectly, and her connexion vith the
deceased may be ascertained from the following letter, which he wrote to her on the morning of the duel.
My dear Lola. I am going out to fight with pistols. This explains · why I have slept alone, and why I do not come to see you this morning. “ I have nerd of all my calmness. At two o'clock all will be over. " thousand umbraces, my dear Loia, my good little wife, whom I love so "much, and the thoughts of whom will never leave me."
Mlle. De Montes in her testimony spoke highly of the kind and amiable qualities of the deceased. She had expressed a desire to be introduced to Bouvallon and to go to the dinner, but Dujarier positively refused to allow it. She received the letter, on her return from rehearsal, and immediately took measures to prevent the duel, but it was too late. “I was,” said she, in her testimony,“ A BETTER SHOT THAN DUJARIER, AND IF BOUVALLON WANTED SATISFACTION I WOULD HAVE FOUGHT HIM MYSELF." She received the corpse from the carriage, and the emotion which she then experienced was still visible in her testimony. Dujarier evidently entertained a warm affection for her, as in addition to his farewell letter, he wrote a will, on the morning of the duel, leaving her the principal part of his estate. His interest in La Presse" alone was an item of considerable importance. It was owned by a joint stock company and was divided into 25 shares, each share selling, at the time of the duel, at $60,000 francs, ($12,000,) and each share receiving an annual dividend of $1478. Dujarier, by his ability as a writer, had raised the establishment to this value, and in addition to his salary as chief editor owned eight shares, valued in the aggregate at $96,000.
The duel was fought in March 1845, in the Bois de Bologne. Bauvallon was the challenger, and, at the first fire, shot his antagonist in the head and killed him instantly. The trial, as already stated, took place on the 26th March, 1846; and Lola Montes, after receiving the corpse from the carriage, superintending the funeral, and making the necessary disposition of her interests under the will of the deceased, left Paris to forget the scenes and the circumstances connected with the sudden and violent death of her best and only friend. The trial itself possesses an interest with our professional readers for the light which it throws on French jurisprudence. But recent political events in Bavaria have created an increased interest in the case for the view which it presents of the true character of the extraordinary female who has since wielded the destinies of that Kingdom.
The conflagration of Rome is remembered as fixing perpetual infamy upon the name of Nero, while the munificent rebuilding of the city by the same Emperor is almost forgotten. It was the fate of Machiavelli, by the authorship of a single work, to fix a stigma on his reputation which has outlived all the great achievements of a long life of usefulness. The story of the boy who drove a nail in the wall every time he committed an evil deed, and drew one out when he performed a good one, is constantly illustrated in life. The good deeds may be more numerous than the bad ones, and the good that men do may far outweigh, in temporal importance, the evil of their lives; still, so contaminating is the nature of crime, that its marks of shamc remain, like the black holes in the wall after the nails had been drawn, to maculate the reputation which had else been spotless. Thus with Lola Montes, she possesses some traits of character, and has performed some acts which would command our admiration at once were it not for the cloud which a grevious sin has thrown upon her character. But let justice be done even to her. The truth can work no injury to any one.
After leaving Paris, she made her next appearance upon the Theatre at Munich. Her association with the literary and political circle in which Dujarier moved in Paris, had made her familiar with general literature, and with European politics in particular. The beauty and rare powers of mind which won the attachment of her talented protector in Paris made a rapid conquest of the King of Bavaria. The masculine energy and courage which prompted the effort to save the life of her friend by hastening to the duelling ground, with the intention to stand in his place in the deadly conflict, enabled her to acquire an ascendancy over the minds of others. The extent of her influence in Bavaria is shown by her success in driving the Jesuits from power, remodeling the cabinet of the King, and directing all the important measures of his administration.
Leaving her improper relations with that sovereign to the just judgment of an enlightened public, and passing by her elevation to the rank of Countess of Landsfelt, as a circumstance not calculated to disturb the equanimity of plain republicans who place but little value upon patents of nobility, it is due to the cause of justice that a fair record be made of the public acts of these parties, so far as those acts have had an influence upon the kingdom under their control. Where there is so much for morality to condemn it is difficult to see ought to commend.
The King of Bavaria, with all his faults, is something of a poet-has a taste for the fine arts—is a great advocate tor internal improvement-and has done a great deal for the cause of religion and of human liberty. Among the Churches built by the King are the St. Ludwig's Church--the Aller Heiligen Chapel, the Theatiner Church, and the Au Church. Among the public buildings built by him are the new palace,-the Glyptothek with all its statues—the Pinacothek, with its statues,—the Odeon,the Public Library,—the University,—the Clerical School, the School for the female children of the Nobility,—the Feldherrenhalle, filled with statues,—the stained glass manufactory—the Arch of Triumph,—the Ruhmeshalle,the Bazaar, the new Palace and the Walhalla. Nearly all of these magnificent structures have been erected and the