The Canadian Freeman of the 28th of February I perused on the afternoon of that day, and on the first of March I addressed the following letter to James Fitzgibbon, Esq.
        My Dear Sir—
    In the Freeman of the 28th of last month I have noticed an article under the signature of "A Relative" which purports to give the world a circumstantial account of a Duel, in which I was unhappily engaged, some ten or eleven years ago.
    The principal, indeed the only, object the writer seems to have, is the gratification of a deep and implacable feeling of hatred and revenge towards me.
    As the article alluded to, is as replete with base unmanly and extravagant falsehoods, as perhaps could have been invented and uttered, by the most hardened, unprincipled and abandoned wretch in existence—and as the statements, (if true) should drive me out of the pale of all respectable-indeed of all civilized society; I feel it necessary however painful it is, and however humiliating it may appear in the eyes of the public, to come openly forward, and in direct and specific terms, contradict what is alleged against me by this malignant and anonymous scoundrel.
    It suggests itself to my mind that to do this most properly, and at the same time most effectually, it would be advisable to call upon the two seconds to confirm or deny the account given by the "Relative," and it will afford me peculiar satisfaction to have you, (in company with some other gentleman) to wait on Mr. Boulton and Mr. Small for that purpose.
                                                        I am my dear sir,
                                                              yours very faithfully,
                                                                    SAMUEL P. JARVIS
        Col. Fitzgibbon, &c. &c. &c.

                                                                    5th March, 1828

        My Dear Sir—
    Messrs. Henry Boulton and James E. Small, have met in presence of Mr. Wm. B. Jarvis and me, and the result of our conference has been the accompanying papers, numbered one and two.
    No. 1 is a contradiction of the false statements made in the paper published in the Canadian Freeman, signed "A Relative"—and No. 2 is a detailed statement of the circumstances which attended the duel.
    Considering the nature of the attack which has been made upon you, I did not hesitate to comply with your request. Indeed I think it due to the community, that every man should now exert himself to protect individual character from the attacks of unprincipled and wicked men.
                                                        I remain, dear sir,
                                                              very truly yours,
                                                                    JAMES FITZGIBBON
        Samuel P. Jarvis, Esq. &c. &c. &c.
No. 1—On the 5th of March, Inst. (1828) Messrs. H. J. Boulton and James E. Small, met by request, in the presence of Messrs. James Fitzgibbon, and William B. Jarvis, when the following statement, intended to contradict an article which appeared n the 28th ultimo in the Canadian Freeman, under the signature of "A Relative" was produced and read to Mr. Small, and an appeal was made to him to confirm its correctness, when he declared that there was no material part of it which he could contradict, and that the minor parts which he could not confirm, he admitted may be quite correct, but that he could not then recall them to his memory. —viz.
    That Mr. Samuel P. Jarvis was not in York from the afternoon of the day on which he was assaulted by Mr. John Ridout in the street, until the tenth of the month of July. (This Mr. Small cannot say of his own knowledge.)
    That Mr. Boulton was not at the time of the duel, acting Solicitor General, nor was he appointed to that office until the 11th March, 1818, the year following-nor was he in any manner connected with the Government. (This Mr. Small cannot say of his own knowledge.)
    That Mr. Ridout having understood, that Mr. Jarvis intended calling upon him, desired Mr. Small to wait upon Mr. Jarvis and inform him, that he was ready to meet Mr. Jarvis at any time and place he would name-and that Mr. Boulton afterwards waited upon Mr. Ridout at Mr. Small's for the same purpose, and the meeting &c. were arranged.
    That that part of the said article that declares that Mr. John Ridout fired by mistaking the second word for the third word (owing to its stronger emphasis being placed on the second word by Mr. Henry John Boulton) is wholly false and untrue in as much, as the signal was given by Mr. Small, and not by Henry John Boulton.
    That the words stated, and declared to have been used by Mr. Jarvis to Mr. John Ridout, when Mr. Ridout fired-viz. "go back to your ground, damn you," are utterly false and untrue.
    That Mr. James Small never interfered with a view to an amicable settlement between the parties, after, or before they arrived on the ground.
    Neither did Mr. John Ridout on retaking his ground, declare (as it is stated) "if it must be so it must;" but on the contrary, Mr. Ridout fully acquiesced in the decision of Mr. Small and Mr. Boulton, on the justness of Mr. Jarvis being allowed his fire.
    Neither did Mr. Jarvis (as it is stated) make use of the expression, "there damn you" when he fired.
    That the statement, that Mr. Ridout fell crying, "Oh you have killed me, it was foul play," is wholly untrue and false, in as much as Mr. Ridout did not fall, but was supported for some time after he received his wound, shook hands with all parties present, fully forgave Mr. Jarvis, and declared "if Jarvis had not shot him, he might have shot Jarvis," & never intimated that there was anything unfair with the conduct of all the parties.
    That there was not at this moment thunder and lightning or rain, as stated in the article signed "A Relative." That is utterly false and untrue, that Mr. Boulton touched or stirred Mr. Ridout with his foot, after he was supposed to be dead, as is stated to be the case.
    That there is no foundation for the assertion that Mr. John Ridout declared to Mr. Playter, "ah Playter, it was foul play," in as much as Mr. Ridout expressed himself quite to the contrary while the parties remained with him.                                                       { JAMES FITZGIBBON
                                    Certified {
                                                      { Wm. B. Jarvis.
No. 2—
    The following, purporting to be a statement of the leading, or most important circumstances attending the duel, between Mr. Samuel P. Jarvis, and Mr. John Ridout, was submitted and read to Mr. Henry John Boulton, and Mr. James E. Small, and agreed to in our presence—viz.
    On the afternoon of the 11th July, 1817, Mr. Small called at the request of Mr. John Ridout, upon Mr. Samuel P. Jarvis, to say that Mr. John Ridout had understood, that Mr. H. J. Boulton had been in search of him, and that imagining Mr. B. was the bearer of a message from Mr. Jarvis, he had called to say that Mr. John Ridout was ready to afford Mr. Jarvis a meeting whenever Mr. Jarvis thought proper.
    That Mr. Boulton afterwards called upon Mr. Small at old Mr. Small's house, and arranged the time and place of meeting; and that the following morning, at day-light, at Elmsley's farm, was appointed. (Mr. Small is under the impression that Mr. Boulton called at his father's for the purpose of delivering a challenge to Mr. John Ridout, and not merely to fix the time and place.) H. J. B.
    Some time before daylight, the whole four persons met nearly opposite Dr. Macaulay's gate, as they were proceeding to the ground. They (all four) proceeded together, and arrived there about an hour before day-light. They remained a great part of the time in the barn, in consequence of the thunder and lightning, and occasional rain. Mr. Jarvis left the barn before day-light, and was absent for some time. Mr. Boulton, Mr. Small, and Mr. Ridout remained in the barn conversing in a friendly manner-When day-light appeared preparation was made for the contest.
    Twelve paces were first proposed; but it was afterwards decided that the distance should be eight, on the suggestion of Mr. Ridout, who assigned as a reason, that he considered Mr. Jarvis a better shot than himself, and that at a short distance, they would be more upon an equality.
    The ground was accordingly measured, and a space chosen between two stumps, before which each party would have stood—the larger of the two, being behind Mr. Ridout; but upon Mr. Jarvis observing that the stumps would attract the eye, and aid the parties in taking aim, and consequently would be more likely to cause the fire to take effect, the ground was changed to an entire open space. It was agreed that the signal should be given by Mr. Small, which was to be 1, 2, 3, fire. At the word two, Mr. Ridout fired and moved from his ground—Mr. Small called to him to resume his ground, and put a loaded pistol into his hand. On a consultation between Mr. Boulton, Mr. Small, and Mr. Ridout, it was considered by all three, that Mr. Jarvis should have his fire—the loaded Pistol was accordingly handed back by Mr. Ridout to Mr. Small, and the discharged one re-placed in his hands. Mr. Small then gave the as originally agreed upon, 1, 2, 3, fire; and Mr. Jarvis at the word fire, did fire, without deliberation, and without raising his arm until the word fire.
    Mr. Ridout partly wheeled around but did not fall—all parties ran up to him—Mr. Jarvis threw his Pistol on the ground and said, "My God, what have I done." Mr. Ridout shook hands with all parties, and freely forgave Mr. Jarvis, and said, "if Jarvis had not shot him, he might have shot Jarvis." —There was a full expression of forgiveness on the one side, and sorrow and regret on the other. After this conversation Mr. Ridout fainted, and the parties supposing he was dead, left the ground.
    No rain fell after the ground was measured during the stay of the parties in the field—and none of the expressions attributed to Jarvis, viz.: "Go back to your ground damn you." —and when firing "there damn you," were ever uttered by him, or anything like them. Mr. Jarvis when he perceived the nature of the wound, and what was likely to result from it, appeared much overcome and used many expressions of sorrow.
    Neither did Mr. Ridout ever say, that there was foul play ; on the contrary, Mr. Small asked Mr. Ridout if he was satisfied with his conduct, and he said perfectly, that it was all fair. Neither did Mr. Boulton ever stir the body of Mr. Ridout with his foot, all parties being too deeply affected by the melancholy sight, to indulge in such brutality. Everything that took place on the ground, was with the full concurrence of Mr. Small and Mr. Boulton—neither of them insisting on one line of conduct instead of another.
    What is above stated is correct from my initials—what is previously stated I was not present at—H. J. B.

                                                      { JAMES FITZGIBBON
                                    Certified {
                                                      { WM. B. JARVIS

Pamphlet by Samuel Peters Jarvis giving contradictory versions of the Jarvis-Ridout duel:
1. The Libel (article from the Canadian Freeman): 1a. opening — 1b. the Coroner's Inquest — 1c. conclusion
2. Jarvis's Contradiction: 2a. statement of the two "seconds" regarding the duel — 2b. statement of James Fitzgibbon regarding the street fight — 2c. statement of George Markland regarding the street fight — 2d. statement of Peter Robinson