1784.
before that gentleman ufed any violent geftures, or even appeared incenfed ; but that as foon as the stroke was given, Monʃieur Marbois employed his ftick with great feverity, till the fpectators interfered and feparated the parties. One of the witneffes, indeed, faid that previoufly to engaging with their canes, he obferved the two gentlemen, at the fame inftant, lay their hands on each others fhoulders, in a manner fo gentle, that he, who had heard it was cuftomary among the French to part with mutual falutations, imagined a ceremony of that kind was about to take place and was furprized to fee De Longchamos ftep back, and ftrike the cane of Monʃieur Marbois.
On the part of the defendant, evidence was produced of his having ferved with honour in the French armies, and his commiffion of Sub-Brigadier in the dragoons of Neattles, was read. It appeared that the occafion of his calling on Monʃieur Marbois, was to obtain authentications of thefe, and fome other papers relative to his family, his rank in France, and his military promotions, in order to refute feveral publications, which had been in the news-papers, injurious to his character and pretenfions. The refufal of Monʃieur Marbois to grant the authentications required was the ground of De Longchamps’ refentment, and the immediate caufe of his meances at the Minifter's houfe.
With refpect to the affault, one witnefs (a Frenchman) fwoe that he faw Monʃieur Marbois give the firft blow, and his Excellency the Prefident of the State, teftified, that Monʃieur Marbois, having complained to him of the infult received in the Minifter's houfe, he fent a meffage to De Longchamps, requefting to fee him ; that the defendant readily attended, when his Excellency explained his reafons for apprehending, that he meditated fome perfonal violence upon Monʃieur Marbois that the Chevalier fhould be bound over for his good behaviour ; but that gentleman would not acceded to the propofal.
Sergeant and Vannoʃt, for the defendant, contended, that the expreffiions laid in the firft part of the indictment, were too equivocal to be conftrued into meances of corporal harm. ‘‘ I will difhonour you’’, is a fentence that conveys more than one fignification ; and the threat would have been fully accomplifhed, had the Chevalier defcended to any of thofe very libellous publications, with which his own character had been afperfed. The eftablifhed maxim, that words ought to be taken in their mildeft fenfe, operates, therefore, in favour of the defendant ; and, at all events, that they do not amount to an affaults, and are not the fubject of an Indictment, are principles incontrovertibly eftablifhed. 3 Bl. Conn. 20. Finch L. 202. 4. Inʃt. 108. They infifted, that the President offered Monʃieur Marbois the only fecurity which the law will allow on fuch occafions, and which would effectually have reftrained any future violence intended
to
