The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-05-03
FORTY SECOND DAY-sfo.an,. Mar ..

FOklf -SECOND DAY-Moaday. May 2.
Mr. ALExAsDEa BoRLAsD, the juror in consc
from last Thursday till this day, answered on hi
name being called.
The Couar. Mr. Borland expresses some doubt
"a to his ability TO hold cut 70 day, ana suggests
me that il would De best to adjourn Tor day or w
further. He might set here two or three hours
and break down more than hs did before. | an
ready to do any thing which may be thought, OF
Consultations to be most prudent.
Mr. BoaLASD, (the JUROR My doctor did no
think could hold out If came here to- day HI
told me to exercise my own Judgment about tn,
matter.
The DIsrRIcr ATTORNEY here explained MA tea
timony given the 23d ultimo in relation to mo
neys paid by him to Judge Aguiiar. The $50,
paid on one occasion was sent through Mr. Sla
cum; and the S2l0 paid another occasion wa,
sent through MIR. Bowes. The first named sum
therefore, isciuded in the 400 paid TO Jud o,
Agullar By Mr.. Sacum. TINS last-namsd sum
was sent rs being what be asked for, to be broueh
into HIS account when settled, aud not as payins
the tavern bill for which be wanted il This bill
was at French's Avenue House The bill at vii
iard's De (hr FendalD never saw.
The Couar What have the court agreed upon
% regard to the Adjournment in consequences o
Mr.. Borland's continued ilsness?
Mr.. BRkDLxV We are content TO go on wi tn
eleven jurors and have something done.
Mr. BosLAND was asked when be tho ught be
would be able to be present again, and ne replied
that on Wednesday ne thought hs would De vel
The CoURr. Hoe much time will the remainin z
testimony occupy
Mr.. MAY. About three days. The rebutting
proof will only take up two days. We cannot
calculate for law points that may arise.
Mr.. BaADLsY. There is some sur-rebutting
proof to be offered.
The DIsTnIcr ATTORNEY. That Of itself presents
very nice question.
Mr.. BRADLEY. The sur-rebulting proof depends
on the rebotting proof.
The CoURr. / do not think there ought to be
much more testimony. If the ia not under
stood now IL never will be.
The following was then ordered to be entered
the minutes of the court:
alexander Borland, one of the jurors in the
against George A. Gardiner, appeared to-
day, hut stated to the court that he was sil too I'M
well TO sit in the case; and II then
Ordered, by consent of the counsel on both
sides, that the case be adjourned until Wednesday
next"
The jury were accordingly dismissed until
Wednesday next.
Mr.. CAsLIsLE. ! would suggest to the court
that we may as well occupy to-day in the discus
sion of the admsssibihty Of the letters identified
by Colonel Thomas to be in the handwriting OF J.
Charles Gardiner. For the sake of Argument, we
will admit that il ID proven they are In his hand
writing.
The DIsrRIcT ATTORNEY. Suppose the court
should decide on that assam ption that they were
admissible in evidence, then the opposite side would
20 and contest tue signatures to them.
Mr.. CAsLIsLE. of course you would have your
own evidence on that subject.
The DIsrRIcT ATroRSEY. We desire to have
all of the facts brought out and the question
tied.
Dir. CARLISLE The testimony as to the gsnu.
ineness of the letters, If continued from till
the middle of next week, would not be much more
IN effect than our concession If your honor rules
on that assumption that they are not admissible
on the grounds presented, we will have saved the
cross examination of Colonel Thomas and en-
ployed the intermediate time between now and
the next meeting of the jury. When the jury
come in on Wednesday morning, unless the sug
geston be adopted, the first thing will be the dis
cussion of the admssibiity of these letters hich
may occupy the whole day. It's matter which
will involve the consideration of the contents Of
tbs letters and the introduction of authorities
both sides at least our side-and the result
will be the adjournment of the cause for another
day.
The DIsrsIcr ATTORNEY. If the court decides
the other way, what them
The CoURT. Nothing will be lost. You will
have gained the time which would have been con-
sumsd in argument
Mr.. CARLIsLE. 1t is probable that the discussion
of the question may occupy the best portion OF the
day. II involves, as have already stated the con
tents Of number of papers, the review OF evidence
already given by witnesses, and various other
matters.
Mr. BaapLEY. do not think that some of the
letters viii be pressed even by the prosecution.
The Cousr Isuppose one ground would be that
they are the acts of a third party,
Mr. BRADLEY. They are also irrelevant and col
lateral
Mr. CAsIsrE. If the segregation have made
be adopted, much time will De saved.
The CoURT. j do not Why the argument
may not 60 on now
Mr. BRADLEY. can see no necessity for having
jury here during the discussion of the question.
The CoUST. There ia none
The DIsrRIcr ATTORNEY. Il has not been usual
to take up any part Of a cause during the absence
Of the jury.
The CoURT. 1t has been usual to save time.
MIR. BsADLET. II is not uncommon for jury
to take recess during the discussion of law
point.
MIR. MAY. am willing to submit to the dec-
sion Of he court in reference to the matter.
The COURT.- Ii the argument be gone into now
q day would be saved, or whatever time it would
take up.
Mr. MAY. It would simplify the matter if the
defence, who object to the admission of the letters
as evidence, would state the points of their ohjec-
ton. We could investigate them to-day, and dis
cuss the subject in half the tune to morrow.
Mr. BsADLEy. We want to review the grounds
On which you expect them 10 be admitted,
Mr. MAY. You are the Directing party.
Mr.. CARLISLE. We suppose that they are not
rtRa1 fGcts evidence, because they are the letters
or written declarations of witness IN the cause
and unless something be shown to otherwise dis
tiDguish them they clearly ara not admissible.
YOU have reasons which will take them out Of tbs
operation Of the rule, you will state what they are
IL state our objections, we Will give all the
grounds that we are enabled toimagine you might
put mem upon anu may tnsfslolSp iuf nlsn toe
with sotlething you have not thought of.
After consultation, it was agreed BY the counsel
on both sides bat the argument on the admssibil
ity Of the letters referred TO proceed to- morrow.
MIR. CARLISLE. When get through the CUES
ton ~ be argued tomorrow, propose to present
the law # Spain, which referred 10 the other day
and which have now access to, in order to raise
the question OF the competency OF the declaration
made By the deceased George A. Gardiner, Of The
names and ages OF the members Of his family. The
laU rsOuires TINT declaration 10 be sde.
Mr. MAY. / thought that point had been de-
cided2
The CoURT. said, believe, that thought tha
did not make any difference.
The court then adjourned.