Gordon v. State

In an indictment for bearing a challenge to fight a duel, it must appear* from the evidence, that the offence of which the prisoner is convicted was committed within the State of Mo. or within the jurisdiction' of the court.

ERROR to the Franklin circuit court. The defendant William Gordon, insists on the following points, as establishing error in-the admission in evidence by the court of the paper purporting to be a letter from James B. Bowlin to James Brotherton: 1st. That the said paper purporting tobe a letter, varies from the letter set out in the indictment. The defendant William Gordon, relies upon the following point, as establiseing error in the admission in evidence by the court, of the irritated state of feeling between James B. Bowlin and James Brotherton, at the time at which the letter set forth in the indictment is charged to have been sent. 2nd. That the acts done as charged in . the indictment, are all that the State had a right to offer in evidence. The State offeeling between third persons, was no part of the evidence of the State. If in a case of a duel or challenge, the feelings of the principals were not hostile, and the challenge were a joke, that is matter of defence. Then in rebuttal, if at all, the State might have introduced the irritated state of feeling &c. The Defendant insists upon the following point, as establishing error, in the circuit court’s refusing to set aside the verdict of' the jury and to grant defendant a new li'ial. 1st. That the evidence adduced to the jury, besides the deficiencies' arid vices already pointed out, was defective in the following points; 1. — There is no evidence of a scienter, td wit, of Gordon’s knowledge of the coritóííts of the paper, he appears td have handed to James Brotherton. 2. There is no venue proved.— The defendant! relies on the following points, as establishing error in. the refusal of the court td arrest the judg-híent. 1. That in the iridictment the malice or scienter is eharged to be at the time of bearing, not delivering the letter arid paper writing described in the iridictment. 2. That there is no sufficient description in the indictment of the offence charged. 3. The_ delivery of the Challenge is ho where charged iri the iridictment.