Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-06-03

Alhey derive no Vali0ity Tom Me tyIOHEcss4
probability that they had jurisdiction 10 the
case; none certainly from the presumption
tnas being court : .asurPasion OF Jurls.
diction will not be presamed- The rca..
soaing applies ia full force 90 The actings
al magistrate whose juIisdictiorisioc
Thus in the easesof i warraat, il is express
~ declared that the place where u was
Emade onghsto appear.
I he attenpt 10 remedy this defect ny
comparing the date II the certificate, given
Fby ,he magistrate with that given BY the
governor, caDnot sncceeds The arswer
given at bar to this argument IS concISslve.s
The certificate wants those circumstances
which would make ittestimohy, andwith.
|ous them no part of isean be regarded. h
The second objection is eqaally iatal.
TIE governor has certified that q man OF
the same name with the person Who f les
administered the oath is magistrate !, y
SIt is too Ubviousrotbe controverted, that
there-may be TWO or more persons o. the
same naEae, and, consequently, - produce
that certainty which the case readily adnlts'
Of, the .cer,ihca,s Of the governor ought
TO have applied TO the Individual who adj
minis.ered The oath. The proPriesy Of this
certainly snd precision in a certificates,
which is to authenticate any affidavit 70 be
introduced in,o a coa,t Of justice, IS SO
generally admitted, tllst do notrecollecs
a.siugle instance infwhich the principle has
been departed from. n
It has beer said that i:.ought ts appear,
that there are two persons OF thesame
name, or the court willnos presume such
TO be tie fact The court prcsumes no.
thing. i, mayor may not he the fact, aad'
The court cannot presums that II IS not.
The argumrnt proceeds upon 40 idea tina,
an instrument is to be dfsproved by him
who objects TO it, not~skss it isto be proved
Eby him who Offers it. Nothing can. be
more repuguant To- the establisked=usage Of
courts.
How is it tobc proved that there.aretwo
psrsons of the name Of Csnas ia the terri
tory of Orleans? If with a. knowledge ct
several weeks, perhaps aouihs, that This
prose eution was totbe carried on, the exc
cutive onghs not 10 be required TO produce
this witness, ough. the prisoner to be re.
CURED, with The notice OF few heurs 10
prove that two persons OF the same came
reside Ia New Orseaas?
II, has bsen repeatedly urges thar diff
ference exists bsrweea the ssriclness Of
laws which would be applicable TO atrial 10
chief and tina. which is applicable .o-a no.
iron TO commit far trial.
OF the reality of this distinction, the
present controversy aHards conclusive proof.
Al a trial in chief, the accused possesses
the valuable privileges of bang confronted
with his accussr. Ru.lhe must be some
limit to this relaxation, and it appears not
to have extended so far as 10 the admission
OF pepper, uot purporiing to- be 80 sffidavis
and not Shown tchs ore.
When it is asked whether every, man
does no, believe that this affidavit was re-.
ally taken bsfsrsa magistrate; il is at once
answered tha; this canno. affect the case.
Should man OF pyo5!ty derlarea certain
fact withiD his own knowledge, he would
be credited BY all who knew him, bur his
declaration could nol bs receiyeda IS test.
mony By the Judge who ARMY believed
him So man mlghs be bslisyed to be
guilty ct a Crane, bst a jury could not
c 'nvict1him, uelrss the testimony proved
ain 20 b: gully of,it. This jadieial dis.
belief Of a pfobabIe circumstance does not
establish vide interval between common
lsw end common sense. It is believed
10 this respect to shew their Intimate Uni.
on.
The argument; goes to this, that the pa
per shall be received and acted upon as an
affidavit, not because the oath appsars to
have been administered according to law,
but brcaase il was probable TIA: it was so
administered.