The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-03-25

Tue te6tMOuy ne cOuaO compare IL TO uOtulhk
but the story of the three black crows. And as to
Pando, he ms the ghost Of this case, he was
brought up o. all occasions.
Mr.. MAY sid the rulee of evidence were the
same in criminal and ciy CASEY Hs wEu ,,ss =; e
which the party lives is net sumcaen. noslIs
civil cause III notary left notice OF proIess a.
any other place when the party mac n9-piace o.
~ shina a. leave notice at the place where the
party was soiourning. It would have been sui
cient notice IT, in writing, to leave 1t at the door
Of the house II was onered ga. as par. 9. .ne evl,
fairness of the commission, in endeas oring to
arrive at the truth to the existence of this mine
They desired to show that the commission went to
the house where the accused was then staying;
that they got him ns they could; that,
having asked for him in person, and not being
admitted to him, they could do no more than TO
deliver the notice to his host II was not necessary
for them to prove the actual delivery OF the mes
sage to Gardiner The presumption of law and
of common sense was. that he did deliver it.
Nothing more common In the every day
transactions of life and of business, than to leave
a message at the house Of q party with servant,
a child or any member of the household; and such
messages, thus delivered, were constantly acted
on by the parties for whom it was left.
It was sufficient for them to bring this notice to
the host, to establish the presumption that it was
| invited to the chamber of Gardiner, and conse
quently could not deliver it in any other way than
by delivering ii to the mater of the house where
| he was then residing
was, and would establish the relation he bore to
the accused, in manner which would admit OF
| no doubt.
! Mr.. May said he met the gentleman's declara
/ ton that the commission had any such order to
/ prevent DR.. Gardiner coming into the State of San
Luis Potos, by plain and emphatic denial.
Mr.. BRADLEY said he had never said any such
thing.
Mr. MAY said he had misunderstood the gentle
! man, then. But he would now cay to the gentle
man, that, 80 far as he was concerned, he never
heard of such an order. Butt will (said hey tell
the gentleman what the commission did know
Mr.. BRADLLv asked if this was regular; if the
gentleman could go on and state matters of fact
not given in evidence? nH III =
Mr.. MAY said he was only stating matters in
reply to what had fallen from the other side. But
if the court thought it best not to proceed further
| in this way, he would forbear S% s,,;as
The CoURT thought the matter had gone far
enough. Let the evidence BE given, aud on that
there would be room enough for comment.
! MIR. MAY. We then, sir, intend to follow up
this evidence of the delivery Of the notice to Pan
do the host of Gardiner. by proof Of the position
/ of the doors of the adjoining rooms and the ar
engagements of the house, from which the jury
might infer that that notice, which was given in
an audible tone, and which Pando heard, might
| also have been heard by the defendant and his
party, the door of the adjoining room being at the
time ajar.a This will be evidence, on which we
may argue TO the Jury tnaI THIS notice was not only
| given to the host, and by him delivered to the
guest but also that it heard at the time by the
| accused himself. The rule of evidence was the
| same in civil and criminal cases What would
become of the whole doctrine of presumption? If
presumptive evidence be entirely excluded, then
| large branch of the only attainable evidence in
many cases would be destroyed, and there would
| be no possibility of proving many offences. The
law would presume that Pando did give this no,
ce, unless there be shown some reason for his not
| doing so.
| The doctrine of presumption will say that man
| holding the relation Of landlord did do that duty
to his guest which his position and relation to-
wards another sojourning at his house would re
quire him to do s.. -
The law allows, and will presume, when the
| best means of getting at a man have been exer
| cised, that they should accomplish the purpose in
view. .... -
The CouRT considered this proposed evidence as
subject to two objections:
lst The commission was acting under no au-
thority relating to this case any evidence which
they found might of cour1e be admitted, but of
course it must be offered under all the rules of evil
dence and law. .3>'@
Cd. 1t was evidence altogether res inter alias
sctas. Dr.. Gardiner was in no way connected
with it, 80 far as had yet been shown. The Court,
therefore, was decidedly of the opinion that the
evidence was inadmissible.
Mr.. BRADLEY said that the gentleman had en-
tirely mistaken the scope of his remarks. He had
not intimated that the commission had procured
this order, but be understood they knew of it. fs
Mr.. May. On my honor gentleman, ! never
heard of such an order until reached the city of
Mexico, and have never till this day believed there
was such an order. The commission might have
got such order, but they would not have asked
for it under any circumstances. .r.ss .... = .sr
Mr.. BRADLEY said they would prove that such
an order had been issued, and that Pando never
delivered the notice, supposng the gentlemen of
the commission in some way connected with the
execution of that order. :ss- ..s4 nd. T.,. If
Mr.. MAY said the commission, 80 far from de
string to limit Dr.. GARDENERS opportunities of OBJ
tanning information, were most anxious that he
should be given the fullest privilege of establish.
ing the existence of the mine. He went on. the
commission himself most reluctantly; he had re-
fused to go over and over again, and at last con
sented to go upon the express stipulation, by the
President and the officers of the Government, that
he not to be witness on this trial. vel s =
After some further conversation, both sides
agreed to forbear from any statements OF facts not
And then the court adjourned.
CoRREcrIoN.--Int the evidence of Mr. Green, as
it appeared in Mondays paper, and contained in
Saturdays proceedings, some slight errors oc
answer of the witness. gs..s.'-7it.
Instead of-"They did not speak of any specific
claim, but they spoke of 'our claims.' which may
have been those they represented for others Thew
said nothing of any specific claim OF their own:'
read-"They did not speak of any specific claim
IN ,ohich they had joint interest; but they
used the words '0ur claim t0ur ctatns,' which
referred to those they represented for others ''aA
Instead of-"I was not employed to prosecute
the claims they spoke Off read-"I did not prose.
cute the claims they spoke off, Eist.3ae,
= The answer to the question-tsWas any thing
said about their having joint interest in caim:
should read-'tThey said they had a claim or
claims of their own, and could control a number
of claims beside their own. Perhaps should,'' Sc
In the testimony of Captain Barry, published in
Thursdays paper, the name of Mr.. Slocum was
accidentally printed Mr.. Slacum, Z. IL H35.sr 81
LARGE FIRE-Nearly One Whole Square De
stroyed.-Last evening, about five O'Clock, FIRE
broke out in stable occupied by Messrs. Powell 8
vining, in small alley leading from York street,
between Pearl and Adam streets. Before the flames
could be checked large portion of three sides of
the square bounded by Adams, York, Pearl, and
Prospect streets, in the Second Ward, was de-
stroyed. From the place where the fire originated
it spread to the blacksmith shop of Mr.. Hughes,
fronting York street, and from thence to the adj
joining small wooden buildings on York street and
in the thereof, occupied by Mr. Savage, black
smith; Cavanagh, wheelwright; Mrs. Bennett, sta
ole; John Tracy, stable; Mr. Elf, stable; and E.
Bailey, stable.-N. Y. Times, 23d f -. ..-
REDUCTION OF FARE.-The Cleveland Forest Citu
says A very considerable reduction Of railway
fare will take effect after the first Of April
Through tickets from here (Cleveland) to Dun