to take place on Wimbledon Common, at daybreak, yesterday

morning, but information having been received that police
officers were waiting, the parties withdrew.'

GAMING DUEL AT PARIS, 1827.
A medical student, named Goulard, quarrelled at billiards with a

fellow-student named Caire. Their mutual friends, having in vain
tried every means of persuasion to prevent the consequences of

the dispute, accompanied the young men without the walls of
Paris. Goulard seemed disposed to submit to an arrangement, but

Cairo obstinately refused. The seconds measured the ground, and
the first shot having been won by Goulard, he fired, and Caire

fell dead. Goulard did not appear during the prosecution that
followed; he continued absent on the day fixed for judgment, and

the court, conformably to the code of criminal proceedings,
pronounced on the charge without the intervention of a jury. It

acquitted Goulard of premeditation, but condemned him for
contumacy, to perpetual hard labour, and to be branded; and this

in spite of the fact that the advocate-general had demanded
Goulard's acquittal of the charge.

THE END OF A GAMESTER.
In 1788, a Scotch gentleman, named William Brodie, was tried and

convicted at Edinburgh, for stealing bank-notes and money, with
violence. This man, at the death of his father, twelve years

before, inherited a considerableestate in houses, in the city of
Edinburgh, together with L10,000 in money; but, by an unhappy

connection and a too great propensity to gaming, he was reduced
to the desperation which brought him at last to the scaffold. It

is stated that his demeanour on receiving the dreadfulsentence
was equally cool and determined; moreover, that he was dressed in

a blue coat, fancy vest, satin breeches, and white silk
stockings; a cocked hat; his hair full dressed and powdered; and,

lastly, that he was carried back to prison in a chair. Such was
the respectfultreatment of 'gentlemen' prisoners in Scotland

towards the end of the last century.
DUEL WITH A SHARPER.

A Monsieur de Boisseuil, one of the Kings equerries, being at a
card-party, detected one of the players cheating, and exposed his

conduct.
The insulted 'gentleman' demanded satisfaction, when Boisseuil

replied that he did not fight with a person who was a rogue.
'That MAY be,' said the other, 'but I do not like to be CALLED

one.'
They met on the ground, and Boisseuil received two desperate

wounds from the sharper.
This man's plea against Boisseuil is a remarkable trait. Madame

de Stael has alluded to it in her best style. 'In France,' she
says, 'we constantly see persons of distinguished rank, who, when

accused of an improper action, will say--"It may have been wrong,
but no one will dare assert it to my face!" Such an expression

is an evident proof of confirmed depravity; for, what would be
the condition of society if it was only requisite to kill one

another, to commit with impunity every evil action,--to break
one's word and assert falsehood--provided no one dared tell you

that you lied?'
In countries where public opinion is more severe on the want of

probity and fair-dealing, should a man transgress the laws of
these principles of human conduct, ten duels a day would not

enable him to recover the esteem he has forfeited.
MAJOR ONEBY AND MR GOWER.

This duel originated as follows:--It appears that a Major Oneby,
being in company with a Mr Gower and three other persons, at a

tavern, in a friendly manner, after some time began playing at
Hazard; when one of the company, named Rich, asked if any one

would set him three half-crowns; whereupon Mr Gower, in a jocular
manner, laid down three half-pence, telling Rich he had set him

three pieces, and Major Oneby at the same time set Rich three
half-crowns, and lost them to him.

Immediately after this, Major Oneby, in a angry manner, turned
about to Mr Gower and said--'It was an impertinent thing to set

down half-pence,' and called him 'an impertinent puppy' for so
doing. To this Mr Gower answered--'Whoever calls me so is a

rascal. 'Thereupon Major Oneby took up a bottle, and with great
force threw it at Mr Gower's head, but did not hit him, the

bottle only brushing some of the powder out of his hair. Mr
Gower, in return, immediately tossed a candlestick or a bottle at

Major Oneby, which missed him; upon which they both rose to fetch
their swords, which were then hung in the room, and Mr Gower drew

his sword, but the Major was prevented from drawing his by the
company. Thereupon Mr Gower threw away his sword, and the

company interposing, they sat down again for the space of an
hour.

At the expiration of that time, Mr Gower said to Major Oneby--'We
have had hot words, and you were the aggressor, but I think we

may pass it over'--at the same time offering him his hand; but
the Major replied--'No, d--n you, I WILL HAVE YOUR BLOOD.'

After this, the reckoning being paid, all the company, excepting
Major Oneby, went out to go home, and he called to Mr Gower,

saying--'Young man, come back, I have something to say to you.'
Whereupon Mr Gower returned to the room, and immediately the door

was closed, and the rest of the company excluded--when a clashing
of swords was heard, and Major Oneby gave Mr Gower a mortal

wound. It was found, on the breaking up of the company, that
Major Oneby had his great coat over his shoulders, and that he

had received three slight wounds in the fight. Mr Gower, being
asked on his death-bed whether he had received his wounds in a

manner among swordsmen called fair, answered--'I think I did.'
Major Oneby was tried for the offence, and found guilty of

murder, 'having acted upon malice and deliberation, and not from
sudden passion.'

THE NEPHEW OF A BRITISH PEER.
In 1813, the nephew of a British peer was executed at Lisbon. He

had involved himself by gambling, and being detected in robbing
the house of an English friend, by a Portuguese servant, he shot

the latter dead to prevent discovery. This desperate act,
however, did not enable him to escape the hands of justice.

After execution, his head was severed from his body and fixed on
a pole opposite the house in which the murder and robbery were

committed.
The following facts will show the intimateconnection between

gambling and Robbery or Forgery.
EDWARD WORTLEY MONTAGU AND THE JEW ABRAHAM PAYBA.

Edward Wortley Montagu was the only son of the celebrated Lady
Mary Wortley Montagu, whose eccentricities he inherited without

her genius. Montagu, together with Lords Taffe and Southwell,
was accused of having invited one Abraham Payba, alias James

Roberts, a Jew, to dine with them at Paris, in the year 1751; and
of having plied him with wine till he became intoxicated, and so

lost at play the sum of 800 louis d'ors. It was affirmed that
they subsequently called at his house, and that on his exhibiting

an evident disinclination to satisfy their demands, they
threatened to cut him across the face with their swords unless he

instantly paid them. Terrified by their violence, and, at the
same time, unwilling to part with his gold, the Jew had cunning

enough to give them drafts on a Paris banker, by whom, as he had
no dealings with him, he well knew that his bills would be

dishonoured; and, to escape the vengeance of those whom he had
outwitted, quitted Paris. On ascertaining how completely they

had been duped, Montagu, with his associates Lords Taffe and
Southwell, repaired to the house of the Jew, and after ransacking

his drawers and strong boxes, are said to have possessed
themselves of a very considerable sum of money, in addition to

diamonds, jewels, and other valuable articles. The Jew had it
now in his power to turn on his persecutors, and accordingly he

appealed to the legislature for redress. Lord Southwell
contrived to effect his escape, but Lord Taffe and Montagu were

arrested, and were kept in separate dungeons in the Grand