1784.
the fame principle that it is ſaid in 6 Co. 45. ‘‘ the court will damn a bond, on which the obligee has recovered.’’
M‘KEAN, Chieƒ Juſtice. The court will not detain a note or bond in the circumſtances mentioned. With reſpect to the competency of the witneſs, I remember a caſe before CHEW, Chieƒ Juſtice, where one Chapman was indicted for playing with falſe dice, and the perſon cheated was admitted to be a witneſs. On the authority of that deciſion, in a recent trial at Lancaſter, the injured party was allowed to give evidence, after a full argument upon the preſent objection. We have, therefore, no doubt that Meng is a competent witneſs.
RESPUBLICA verſus DE LONGCHAMPS.
C
HARLES JULIAN DE LONGCHAMPS, commonly called the Chevalier De Longchamps, was indicted, that
“he on the 17th of May, 1784, in the dwelling-houfe of his Excellency the French Miniſter Plenipotentiary, in the preſence of Francis Barbe Marbois, unlawfully and inʃolently did threaten and menace bodily harm and violence to the perſon of the ſaid Francis Barbe Marbois, he being Conſul General of France to the United States, Conſul for the State of Pennʃylvania, Secretary of the French Legation &c. reſident in the houſe aforeſaid, and under the protection of the law of nations and this Common-wealth.’’ And that ‘‘afterwards, to writ on the 19th of May in the public ſreet &c. he had ſaid Charles Julian de Longchamps unlawfully, premeditatedly and violently, in and upon the perſon of the ſaid Francis Barbe Marbois under the protection of the laws of nations, and in the peace of this Commonwealth, then and there being, and aſſault did make, and him the ſaid Francis Barbe Marbois unlawfully and violently did ſtrike and otherwiſe &c in violation of the laws of nations, againſt the peace and dignity of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Pennʃylvania,” —To theſe charges the defendant pleaded not guilty.
The evidence, in ſupport of the firſt Count, was, that on the 17th of May, De Longchamps went to the houſe of the Miniſter of France, and after fome converfation with Monſieur Marbois, was heard to exclaim in a loud and menacing tone, ‘‘ Je vous deʃbonnarera, Poliçon, Coquin ’’ , addreſſing himſelf to that gentleman. That the noiſe being heard by the Miniſter, he repaired to the room from which it iſſued, and that in his preſence the defendant repeated the inſult offered to Monʃieur Marbois in nearly the ſame terms.
In ſupport of the ſecond Count, it appeared, that De Longchamps and Monſieur Marbois, having met in Market Street, near the Coffee Houſe, entered into a long converſation, in the courſe of which, the latter ſaid that he would complain to the civil authority, and the former replied, ‘‘ you are a Blackguard.’’ The witneſſes generally depoſed that De Longchamps ſtruck the cane of Monſieur Marbois,before
