Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1805-04-05

erred, 1t IS Impossible, 1or the reasons
stated>iR the beginning of his answer to
this article, to suppose that he erred will
fully; since he could have had no posi-
BILE motives for piece of misconduct so
shameful, and at the same time so we'll
calculated to give offence. In a point
soliable to apprehension and misrepre-
sentatioh, and so likely to be used a. a
means of exciting public odium against
him, it is far more probable, that he had
been capable of bending his opinion of
the law to other motives, he would have
admitted illcgaltestlmony which, tax
en- in its utmost effect, could have no
tendency to thwart those plans of venEe-
ance az ainst the uaverser, under the
influence of which he is supposed to
have acted.
Ifhis errour was an honest one, which
as his colleague also fell into it, might in
charity be supposed and, as there is
not a shadow Of evidence TO the contrary,
must in law be presumed he cannot,
for committIngi it, be convicted of any
offence, much less a high crime or mis-.
demeanor, for which he must, on con-
viction, be deprived of his Office.
And for plea to the said third article
ofimPeachment, the said Samuel Chase
saith, that he is not guilty of any high
crime or mideneanor, as in and BY the
said third article is alleged against him ;
and this he prays may be inquired Of BY
this honorable court, in such manner
as law and justice shall seem to them to
require.
The fourth article of impe achment al.
leges, that during the whole course of
the trial Of James Thompson Calender a.
aforementioned, the conduct Of this res
pondent was marked by " manifest in
justice, partially and incompetence :"
and FIVE particular instances ofthe I" in
justice, Partially, and intemperance"
are adduced.
The first consists, Gin compelling the
prisoners counsel to reduce to writing
and submit to the inspection Of the court,
for their admission OF re lection, all ques-
tions which the said counsel meant to
PIOPOuh0 W TIC IOIhl
TaN lor, the witness"
This respondent, in answer to the ar
ticfe now under consideration, admits
that the court, consisting of himself and
the said Cyrus Griffin, did require the
counsel for the traverser, on the trial of
James Thompson Calender ahovemen-
toned, to reduce to writing the questi-
ons which they intended to put to the
said witness. But he denies that it is
more his act than the act ofhis colleague,
who fully concurred in this measure.
The measure, as he apprehends and in
sists, was strictly legal and proper his
reasons for adopting it, and he pre-
sumes those Of his colleague, he will
submit to this honorable court, in or.
der to show that if he, in common with
his colleague, committed an errer, it
was an error into which the best and
wisest men might have honestly fallen.
1t will not be denied, and cannot be
doubted, that according to our laws, e.
violence, whether oral or written, may
be rejected and prevented from going to
the Jury, onvarlous grounds, list. From
lncompetency where the source from
which the evidence is attic mpted to be
drawn, is an improper souFte as if a
witness were to be called whO was in
famous, or Interested in the event of the
suit; or paper should be offered in
evidence, which was not between the
same parties, OF was not executed in the
forms prescribed by laws-2d. For irrcle.
vancy: whenJthe;evidepce offered is not
such, as in law will warrant the Jury to
infer the fact intended to be proved or
where that fact, approved, is immaterial
- the issue. For these reasons, and
psthapc for others which might be speci.
fed, evidence may properly be rejected,
IN trials before eur courts.
AS little can itbe doubted, that &C.
cording to our laws, the court and not the
jury, is the proper tribunal for decidag
all questions relative to the admissible.
~ OF evidence, The effect of the 4v;