Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-06-26

. ~ o..
CURED. 80 ic'
@Thes counsel for the United States consid..
zed the subject in the same light. After ~
silibltlng an affidavit for the purpose OF shom
Ing that the Witnesses could not protablv ~"
sess any material information, Mr.. Ssnf.
said 1t was decided BY the court vesterS3
that 1t Was incumbent on tie defendant. II =.
der to entitle himseifto postponen,ent of i,
trial, on account OF the absence Of these VIZ,
nesses, to sAeV In what repect they are "a,
terial for his defence. 1t was the oniniou =
the court thar the general affidavit III .ono,non
form would not be sufficient for this pu,pass..
but that the particular facts expected from tb'
witnesses must be disclosed, In order tb.t -
court might, upon those facts, Judge Of te's
pfopriety Of granting the postponement.
lFage ~
The court frequently 'rsa,ed III. suh
Ject SO as 20 show the opnIGa th.t h.
special affidavit was ,equ.red only on ;.
count OF the continuance BIZ, VIA, ),
conclusive On this poiat is. that after T..
cidlbg the testimony Of the witnesses :,
be such as could no, be of, red 10 he r.
Judge Patterson was Of opini:n III,
rule 20 shsw caas- why az al. hines,
should not Issue ought TO BE grained -
he ceeld not have reqared the ma,erlai,v
nf the witness 10 be saewn On q n,olion
The success Of which did OCT, IN hs on,
Mon, 10 any degr@e depend on ,aa, n,str.
r'ali,yi and which he granite afer drcid.
leg che testimony TO be sue', as the inv
ought not 10 hear. # is ;heo .aos, anra
rent that the opinion of judge Paterson
has been misunderstood, AID 'h.i no IL.
fereace Can possibly be drawn from it cp.
posed to the pfiEcipl. which has btyD laIl
down by The court. Tia. pr;ncipis wild
therefore be sppllsd tc the preseat mo.
ten.
The 6rs' paper required is the letter Of
gen. Wilkinson, which wa, referred 10 IN
toe message Of the president to coegFsss'
The spplica ION Of that letter 10 The case,
is shewnby the terms 10 which liz commp.
nseatien was made. Il is g s,asmen, Of
the conduct Of the accused, made by ia.
person who is declared 10 be the e.senus!
wiSaess against him. The order tor Pro'
ducing this letter is opposed:
Isl. Because it is not ma!e:Iat 10 The
defence.
It's a principle universally sesnowlelg.
ed that pa:ty has right to Oppose TO the
testimony Of any witness against him, NE
declafa.isns which that Witness has made
st other times On the same subject. Ii be
possesses this Ugh. he must bnog toT"s!
prsaf OF those declarations. !hs proof
must be Obtained before be kncws posi-
lively what the witness will say, for II he
waits u0;;. the witness has been heard 's
the trial, i. Is TOO late 10 mces tim win
his former dcclaratiors. Ihos- former De,
clarations, therefore. cons.,1asc mass OK
testimony which a psr;y has r'SAi'o CO.
tain by way Il precaottor, AID ne posi-,
tive necessity OF which c@n ob'y b. dec'Jsa
at The trial.
T: was will, same surprize al argument
wa. beard ffom ths bar lDa'aatlnS ;a't
the award OF subpoena on s1is Go2ol
cav. he caun:euance Of she court 20 SCI
picioss f-c;ing the se,aeiiy oi witfs5'
WAC is to apPasr on The part of the U. .
Tt;is observsgion could not Rave been c3h'
idered. In cou.ests Of this Description
he court takes go part; the cours has %
CHI to take a part. Every person mar
give in evidence testimony such as 70 s'a'so
Ia this case. WA, would be the f@elln5'
Of th- prosecutor if il this case Ihe aceH''
cd should produce witness ccc!Tsc'sY
rxcuIpatiog himself, and she attorney fNF
she Il S Should be arrested in his sscnf:
70 prove what the sane witness had ss''
upon former occasion By a dec'ar3.'o'
{. ON the bench sha, sach aa a;temo' c'a''
not be permitted because 1t would 'mPy
suspicion in The court that the witness ha0
10. spoken the sru h? R-sPsct'7g 50 y.
;ne,;G ,hle an -, 4etoositios bur one Oplalq"