Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-06-25

VOL. XXI.-NO. Ii.
----.-----..--- ----.1-------s
relevant to the matter in issue between t,..
parties and the Court being cleared, came Ia
the following resolution: ~
The Court decide that the question shall
not be put To the witness. They are sitting;
here to try the point in issue between The par
ties, and they now instruct the accused to con-
fine his questions within the limits of the spe-
OBLIGATIONS.
The Court was then opened, and the above
decision read.
| Proposition 6y ACKNOWLEDGMENT that
my question was objected to by the Judge Ad-
vOcate, expressed to him my wish To sug-
gest its legality and propriety by a writteu
minute, and was in the act Of preparing it by
my counsel, when the court was closed, and
my counsel, on departing, expressed a hope to
the Judge Advocate that opportunity of sup
porting the question would be allow ed me
On my return the decision of the court, re-
ljectins il, has been announced 10 mr.. | Yield
10 the decision. If The court think it disres-
pectful now TO sustain il by any observations,
l pray TO know their pleasure.
| The counsel for the accused was informed
that time would be allowed him to- prepare mis-
minute and the court adjourned till Monday
morning at ten O'clock
United sla,es Navy Yard Gosport Va.
Monday,feb. . y. ID 1924.
| The court met, pursuant To adjournment.
Members present, AS Saturday. Lieut..
Kennun, and the wItuess, Captain Porter, APP
pcarrd.
The proceedings being read, the counsel
for the accused. requested Of the court That
he might be allowed To read the minute pre-
pared by him under their decision Of S4tu-
day, and he WAS Informed thai il must be pre-
seuied IN the usual manner, aud. If deemed Il
proper Instrument, ii should then be red 10
the court.
T." this the counsel objected he declined
| submitting his paper for inspection before it
was read Ia the court.
| On which, the court being cleared, il was
decided that the conditions of the counsel
being contrary ~ the usages of courts mar
ai, az well as To the prac ICE during the course
OF the present trial, they decline admitting the
paper offered by him ; ADD to direct, that Tie
examination of the witness be resun, d and
limited within the charge and specifications
before them
The court was then opened, and the abnve
decision read. The counsel begged ra,c TO
nher an explanation uf the remark. made
through the Judge Advocate 10 the cour, he
did not intend that his objection should be
construed 10 apply To the inspection OF mis- mi
mute by the court he only objected under
the impression that the paper wa, to be sub
Ircted solely to The inspection of the JUDI.
| Advocate, and received or rejected according
| TO the opinion lie might pronounce as TO th,
| pruprlety OF ITS reception.
| And the court in consideration of this ey-
planation, agreed that the paper should be read
| whereup"n, the court was cleared, and tn. pa
per, handed III by tie counsel Tor the accused,
! read.
The Judge Advocate suggested 10 the court.
that, in clearing ON Saturday for drlib-ra.,,
upon the last Question proposed by the accus-
ed, he did not understand the remark of the
counsel as 70 me proposal of minute in sup
port OF that question. He communicated TO
the court "A remark Of the counsel, that, Ia the
srent 81 The rejection othe question, liz must file
a minute upon the record. lie did moi M
derstand him 10 make that remark in the
shape of request TO he urged before tie
court, as stated by the accused in his last pro-
position handed IN on Saturday, and the court.
deliberaiinS un the question, decided il should
not be put to the witness.
! This suggestion mad, the court resumed
IFS dellberatipn on the minute last presented
by The counsel, aud decided, that, without de-
Parting from the rule they had adopted as To
the revision ut their decisions, they were still
desIrous to have every channel opened Tn I'M.
accused aud that, although tie argument
just handed in To the court, should not be coz,
sIdered with regard tn The reversal of ti,eir
last order upon the question il was intended
To support, II should be read in opea court.
and fled upon their record, for TN. considera
lion Of the relieving and appellate power he
fore which their proceedings are directed 10
be laid aud, ~ his request the Judge Adyn-
cate was permitted 10 accompany on the r.,
cord, an answer tn the argument thus consd
cred and rrces9d, tsee appendix 13 and I4l
And The court bring opened, their drrisiop
and the argument of the counsel, were, there
upon, read.
The cross examination of Capt. Porter was
resumed.
Question by the accused. What were the
Typographical errors in the "GpOrgian" pub-
iicati"n you speak OFF Do they alter IN.
meaning of the publication &c they do. sta,.
the erIors in detail.
Answer. In the sentence commencing d" f.
krnnOD STATES" &C. &c. and containing the
words which was soon followed by her can
ture," foF the word capture" read " captn;n;p
and, in the sentence commencing Z" thai Ga,
Wives accordingly undertook" aud CONTAINING
In parrntbrss The words II Of Gov. Vive"
letter)" for the word ot,'' read "ses.' tbat
refers to n letter of Governor Wives ~ hon ,h.
contrary is stated in the words imputed tnIt
krnnOD
Question. Did you ever ATTEMPT to cor.
rect those Typographical errors, by any rsnub.
LEGATION or statement of erraia in the " G eor.
siau? ?"
Answer. No, The publication has not the
SANCTION oil my name, and felt under no oh
legation tO do 50.