Dr. Franklin, in his letter to Mr. Percival, referred to, in my last number, observes, that, "formerly, when duels were used, to determine lawsuits, from an opinion, that Providence would, in every instance, favor truth and right with victory, they were excusable." Dr. Johnson did not think this species of duel so absurd, as it is commonly supposed to be: "it was only allowed," said he, "when the question was in equilibrio, and they had a notion that Providence would interfere in favor of him, who was in the right." Bos., vol. iv. page 14. The lawfulness of a thing may excuse it: but there are some laws, so very absurd, that one stares at them, in the statute book, as he looks at flies in amber, and marvels "_how the devil they got there_." There was, I am gravely assured, in the city of New Orleans, not very long ago, a practitioner of the healing art, who was called _the Tetotum doctor_--he felt no pulse--he examined no tongue--he asked no questions for conscience' sake, nor for any other--his tetotum was marked with various letters, on its sides--he sat down, in front of the patient, and spun his tetotum--if B. came uppermost, he bled immediately--if P., he gave a purge--if E., an emetic--if C., a clyster, and so on. If there be less wisdom, in this new mode of practice, than in the old wager of Battel, I perceive it not. Both Drs. Franklin and Johnson refer to it, as an _ancient_ practice. It was supposed, doubtless, to have become obsolete, and a dead letter, extinguished by the mere progress of civilization. Much surprise, therefore, was excited, when, at a period, as late as 1818, an attempt was made to revive it, in the case of Ashford _vs._ Thornton, tried before the King's Bench, in April of that year. This was a case of appeal of murder, under the law of England. Thornton had violated, and murdered the sister of Ashford; and, as a last resort, claimed his right to _wager of battel_. The court, after full consideration, felt themselves obliged to admit the claim, under the unrepealed statute of 9, William II., passed A. D. 1096. Ashford, the appellant, and brother of the unfortunate victim, declined to accept the challenge, and the murderer was accordingly discharged. This occurred, in the 58th year of George III., and a statute was passed, in 1819, putting an end to this terrible absurdity. Had the appellant, the brother, accepted this legalized challenge, what a barbarous exhibition would have been presented to the world, at this late day, through the inadvertence of Parliament, in omitting to repeal this preposterous law!