The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-05

stroos than such proceeding They do not brin
.nsax wilnss4es here; tAsy pot Jake their dspd
lcosFt. whts1skodid mike ~ evidence in III
60 they 9ive us no % snfify Of confront
'n9 mem; and IN substance We are utterly ex
cannot be used in evidences. which We have neye
seen until thie day; and then they produce a wit
ness to say that these are depositions signed b,
thsss men. whose evidence b not here: and b.
these instrumentaiities they seek to impeach doc
uments which we have died.
Now II this man bad swosn in Mexico that thi
was not his signature, or bad made any deposi
ton to that effect, it would be conceded at tina
it was not evidence; and yet the prosecution
catch up men in that country and take thei
dispositions for the purpose of assaillng an
discrediting this claim, which dispositions canno
be used as evidence; and, 40 the dispositions ar
not in evidence. they say that the man or mel
! who made them made them in the presence of
witness, knowing that he or they are to make diff
| ferent signatures from those which are disputed
and witness who 10 standing by 10 to be brough
here to swear TO the signature to the dispositions
and that attached to the original paper do no
know how il 10 possible to frame a more ingeniou
continuance to avoid the effect of the rule laie
down By the court yesterday than this very scheme
| II scheme it was.
Sir, what is the case? IL it not exactly like that
| OF Stranger and Serie? man is indicted here
| for forgery Papers are alleged to be forged in
Pittsburgh for claim upon the Government; they
do not bring witness here who is acquainted
with the handwriting Of the party, but they send
| the hcad- constable from Washington to Pitts-
burgh, and take the deposition of a witness there
whose name is said to have been forged, and the
deposition cannot be admitted in evidence; but
| that man (the head-constable) is to come here and
swear that he saw him write under these circum-
stances, and his evidence s to be taken in regard
to the claim, and to have it passed upon Us
fraud and forgery.
Sir. is not this the very of Stranger and
Serle? What is it else? And where is the thing to
end? Are we day after day, and hour after hour,
to have the rulings of the court assailed step by
step, in order that something may go to the jury
which 10 not in evidence? In the case of Stranger
and Serle the man whose name was alleged to have
been forged makes his handwriting after the suii
| is pending and showed his signature to the wit
! ness-for what purpose? For no other than to make
the man witness in the trial of the cause. Is il
| not direct evasion of the rule? If man would
lie or swear falsely, he would make his signature
falsely for the very purpose of making it evidence
and yet to be told that this mode of ,tain-
ing evidence is admissible in court of justice in
! the United States!
Sir, the case is now beyond dispute. The com.
| mission went out there to hunt up men with names
corresponding to those in the dispositions filed in
| the case, and have doubt that they found some
And what then? Why it is admitted that the de-
positions taken cannot be put in evidence; but
that their handwriting in support of that statement
| is evidence. Why, may it please your honor, look
| at it only for a moment. The deposition filed by
the defendant is, that he took the deposition of one
Gomez, q Mexican; and what does the commission
do? Why, they go and get the deposition Of one
Gomez, Spanish subject, and they ask upon that
to be permitted to go and offer evidence in ad
dition to the other signatures If your honor please,
we go back to the discussion at first raised and re
fer to the Berkeley peerage case. The judges cay
that his deposition cannot be evidence, and Of
course his hearsay cannot be evidence. and of
| sequence his handwriting made for the purpose
cannot be evidence 1t % making evidence for the
purpose. Can it be distinguished, then? Your
honor said yesterday that it did not depend &C
much upon the post Item NOLAN upon the great
danger that justice might be affected by parties
contriving evidence to prove forgery. And is not
this the most dangerous mode that ever was con.
trived to devise evidence to prove forgery-that
the statement OF man cannot be given in evidence
even on sworn depoaition; but that his signature
to deposition, taken in the case in support of the
side ofthe party calling him witness to his hand
writing, may be given in evidence, when, if or
any occasion he would write unike the imputed sig
nature, he would write unlike it then? Is any man
such fool to that his signature is not his
signature. and then write an exact fac. simiIe o
| the very signature he denies! Why, sir, to sup
pose 80 s the height of absurditY. think, there
fore that the grounds of objection are 80 papable
and forcible that need not say another word upon
| the subject.
| The CoURT, (after repeating the evidence. }
When the evidence was first offered thought the
objection was rather to the order in which it was
presented than to the matter itself 1t appears to
the court that this sgnature-or these signatures,
supposing there were two--to deposition taken in
relation to the same subject matter, although not
in the case taken to prove the falsity of paper,
| are subject, as sources of knowledge, to all the
objection which the court thought existed against
the signatures obtained for the express purpose
| giving knowledge to the witness. Santiago Co.
| mez was shown the original deposition. or paper.
the United States seek to disparage. He was asked
| if the name to twas his signature; he said, No
His deposition was taken to that effect, and the
signature he makes to it is the only means O.
knowing IT the witness possesses, unless he may
have signed citation accompanying the deposit
ton. This, though he net told in terms to sign
his name, that the witness might to it, places
him In circumstances of greater temptation to
vary it than ii he had been asked. The deposi.
ton cannot, every lawyer knows, be evidence; but
the effect is precisely the same if the Witness hav
ing seen him sign his name to denial of his sig.
nature, can be permitted TO testify to the truth O
that denial, for that ia the substance of the test
mony offered. ! think it must be overrued.
Examination of Mr. Partridge resumed.
Mr.. MAY. What is the rubrica on these sigma
lures?
An.. 1t is flourish under the name?
GUS. Is it a part of the signature?
printed, and then the rubricg ia put under it,
never saw Spanieh signature 10 my life withou
rN5rtcg, either in Spain or In Mexico
| 4ues. Talking about Spanish signatures, / vii
ask you if you heard Captain Barry talking Span
Ans Yes, sir.
Cues; Did he speak SO as to be understood
Mr.. BRADLEY. object to that question. Is i
competent for the prosecution to bring in a mater
| which is purely collateral?
The CouRT. If it is purely collateral it cannot
be admitted.
Mr.. BRADLEY. And is 1t not purely collateral
to ask whether Captain Barry speaks Spanish?
The Court. think 30.
Mr.. MAY. But the counsel say that he cauno,
speak the language, and suppose they mean to
| impeach bis testimony.
M MT he
gave ua a sample.
| Mr.. CARLISLE. We have not assailed the wit.
ness at all. We asked him to give us the language
which be used, and we have him speaking 70.
himself, repeating the very words. And now the
gentleman proposes to AK the witness whether he
saw him there, and whether he spoks the Ian
guage pretty we'll. Now. in the first place, Cap
| tain Barry did not see Mr.. Partridge there,ontil
he met him in Laguinillas with the commission;
that after that he continued with the commission,
and that all his (Barry's) inquiries were made
before that time, when be was not nearly 90 prof.
Gent in the language ~ he was after be came to
the commission. The truth Of the matter ia, that il
these collateral matters are opened we must pur-
sue them.
The CouRr. You cannot do that.
Mr.. CARLisLs. Then. 10 the United States to
get Ia evidence which are not to follow?
The CouRr. may allow them to ask collate-
raj Inquiry, but the answcr must conclude both
pArties. "a 80