The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-05-12

questions bearing upon what they suppose It 10 the
intention Of the prosecution TO produce; and when
bad an opportunity of offering it in the examina-
ton in chief Because they chose to ask the ques.
tions on the cross examination, is that giviog US
an opportunity which we are bound to avail our
selves Of and interrupt the regular progress of the
case to go into evidence for which there is no
foundation laid before the court? We did not
pursue the inquiry when the facts came out on the
cross animation. Then what followed the testi-
mony of Mr.. Partridge, which they look upon with
q kind OF phiosophic contempt, and about which
they would not say word except for their zeal for
the purity and entire integrity of the rule of prac.
tice for which they contend3 They did not fee!
that the testimony of Mr.. Partridge quite so
important, though it lead to a most extraordi nary
incident in this cause.
They have said that we were trying to show by
MIR. Partridge that the deed not there on the
9th OF November, the day on which Abbot and
Slocum say that they obtained a copy there; and
that they would show that John Charles Gardiner
got copy from the same office long before that
time. The copy was produced after Mr.. Partridge
had given his testimony, and because, they
avowed, that his testimony tended to impeach the
integrity OF the deed which Abbot and Slocum CO.
pied on the 9th of November, 1882. Evidence with
| reference to the deed is before the jury, and am
now arguing whether or not this is rebutting evil
dence. Until the objection had been made, could
not believe that it would be eaid It was not rebut
ting evidence. ! understand rebuttng evidence to
be evidence introduced to meet the case set up by
the defence. The deed found in Laguinillas in
| Novem Der, 1882. was set up here en- the 18th OF
| April, and they could not have placed us i'm the
predicament of offering to do what the court would
| have put US down for attempting to do.
We have had some little controversy about the
| identity Of the papers. Now, how could know
that MIR. Partridge testifying about the paper
| that they had in their possession? As soon as it
| was exhibited we came forward to meet it. 1t ia
said that had notice that it was in their posses
sion. Suppose We had; but had we any notice that
1 \ -
have expected that; but were to act upon that
probability? Had We not a right and were we not
bound to wait until they had offered III
good deal has been said here about matters
| which conceive to be collateral to the Question
and especially with reference to the fact that Mr.
Abbot offered to show the commissioners where
| the mines reterate the answer which has
been made often the suggestion itself; and it
| ia plain one. There was offer on the part OF
| the commissioners of a reward of five hundred
dollars for exact information in regard to the
mines. Though the offer was not in terms con-
fined to Mexicans, that was its obvious construc-
ton. 1t resort the local know ledge of the
people of the country; but not human being
of the population there me forward to claim the
reward. Mr.. Abbot, of the party of the defendant
which had gone out there, proposed to give the
commissioners the information required. He was
told that his offer would be accepted provided Dr.
Gardiner would say that the mines proposed to be
shown were those upon which his claim vas based
The commissioners naturally enough thought that
T.
Abbot wherever be chose to take them, and TO
have DR.. Gardiner saying "Ihis is not my min e..
| and that is not my mine" DR.. Gardiner refused
to say in writing that the mines proposed to be
shown to the commissioners by Colonel Abbot
belonged to him. II DR.. GARDENERS counsel had
advised him not to show his mines to the commits
sioners, which he ought to have run all possible
ha yards rather than not to have done, be did not
act up to the spirit of that advice, because it has
been proved that he saw nd heard the corresponds
ence which took place between MIR. Abbot and the
chief of the commission, in which the former
offered TO point out the mines. DR.. Gardiner
ought not TO have done by another what he refused
to do by himself: and his conduct showed that the
offer made on the part of Abbot, and to which he
refused TO give his sanction, a mere trick.
Perhaps Mr.. Partridge may be able to throw
light on the mining title which they think of go
much importance rs to produce two copies of it,.
We could not ask him any questions with refer
ence to IT until it had been produced. There are
other things also about which MIR. Partridge may
speak, and which this jury have right to know.
But the simple question for the court now ia,
whether this Is or is not rebutting proof? Cannot
We show that the paper produced by the defence on
the l5,h OF April, well as the one brought for
ward TO sustain it, is false? II evidence produce
before the jury to meet the docum mt offered by
the defendant part of his case, be rebuttin q
proof should like to know what rebutting proof is
ITO CONTINUED