Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-08-27
frt,s eommeneement o. close ofFthe prose-

she hnEan mind spontaneously attaches
goils 10 intentioos. The same fact, there.
1 fore, may bey viewed very differently,
| where the minds prepared by q course q
testimony, calculated taiGpfe ss il with :
lconyiction of the criminal desiga. Of the
accused. and where the fatt is stated with;
tour such preparations. The overt act NAV
be sneh as to influence .hesopinioD, on the
/ testimony afterwards given, respecting the
intention s aud the testimony respecting
the intention; may be such as 10 influence
the opinion onSthc testimony which may be
safterwasds giyenrespeciipgs the overt ACT.
sQnthe question Of consuming time, the
sargamrns was placedin one point of view
by 4hc COUNSEL for the defence, whicf1rx
cited some soubt. 'fhc case was supposed
cf only one witness 10 the overt ACT. and a
declaration tina. it could be proved by no
other. The cour, was asked whether the
counsel would brSpermi.sed then topsocerd
10 examine the intentions Of the accused,
and to>do worse than waste the time Of the
court aad jury, by exposing, wi.hoat a
possible object, the private views aud 70.
tenuons Of any person whatever.
Perhaps 10 such case the cause might
be arrested, but this does not appear 70
warrant the inference that it nigh, be ar.
rested, because the, fact proved by thelwo
Witnesses did not appear to the court 10
anOuutte the &C, Of levying war 10 the
case supposed, the declaration Of the law
IS positive, and poin, proper to be re-.
frrredIo the Court occurs, which sIapends
the right of the jury TO consider the sub
Ject, and compels them BRING 10 verdie.
OF not guilsy. In such a case. no testimo.,
ny could be relevant, and all testlRony.
ongh, 10 be excluded. Suppose the couna
sci for. the prosecution should. say that be
had no testimony TO prove the reasonable
intep,ion: That he believed confidently
the object Of the asseasbags of men on
Blannethasser.,s island 10 be innocents
That il dld noe amount 10 the criAe Of
lesying war s. Surely il would be a wanton
and useless waste Of time 10 proceed with
the examination of The overt act. When
such case occurs 1t cannot be doubted
that a oo'le prosequi will be catered, or
the Jury be directed with the consent o!
The attorney to 6ad verdict OF Eot gull.
sty.
Il has been truly stated. tia. the crime
|. alledged 10 the indictment consists OF the
fact add Of she intention with which tina,
fac, was committed. The testimony dis.
closing both the fact aud the in,en.isn must
be relevant. The cour, finds 90 express
rule stating the order 10 walch The attorney
is TO adducs relevant testimony, ner any
case 10 which q ceurr has iniertered with
the arrangement he has made No attera
uon OF that arrangement therefore Hil
now BE directed.
|: Bur tits proper to addthai the Intention
which is considered as relevant ia ,his sage
of tne enquiry is.he intention which com
poses a part Of the criEae, the ia,en4ion with
which the over, act itself was commitied !;
not a general evil disposition, or an intsn.
ton to commit disslnc, fact. This ,spe
cies Of testimony, if admissible at all, IS
received AZ corroborative or conhrma5cry
testimony. IL does DOT itself prove: the
intention WI h which the act was perform
ed, butt, renders other testimony probakle
which goes 10 that intention. Il is expia'
nA,ofy oIscr assistant TO that Other ,esllmo.
ny. Now il is essentially repugnan, 10 the
/ ussges Of courts, tothet declarations OF she
bookaSby whose authority such testimony
! 10 received, that corrobora,ive or eonhscaa
tory testimony should precede that Whlchi'
[ is 10 corroborate or confirm. Until the IN
troductorv testimony DO given, that which
! 10 merely corrchora,ive is not relevant, and
of consequence, if objected TO, cannot %
admitted without violating the bss. settled
srales of evidence.
This position may be illas,ratedby adj
ssrec, application TO the testimony OF gen