The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-05-13

ssue out OF that State, and say into the State Of
nerelaro, and tries 10 palm off the old mines there as
nose o. 1hs defendant the government is for the FIRST
lime afforded the opportunity Of showing what and where
those mines by everything by which the truth OF geo
gaphea acs can be made clear TO the mind OF the Jury
prohibon TO do that by the court would be TO ALLOW
the deiendanto impose fraud upon the iury The
government simply asks The opportunity 10 prevent this
have been thus frank and cea: in stating the whole
extent OF the proposition In answer 10 the argument of
The learned counsel on the other side who say they will
object 10 all further geographical evidence do think
lney can object to II on the ground OF the consumption
oil time, because they have asked almost innumerable
geographical questions OF Witnesses TO whom put
simple nterrogaoTy in regard to the Identity OF the de-
iendan and his brother Where the geographical inquiry
Is 90 vita pertinent, and conclusive on The question
on which tins jury is sworn 10 shut out would be,
conceive the greatest hardship which could be commit
ied against the government and the of justice.
Gentlemen can object if they choose TO the admissb,y
OF The specific evidence by which we mean TO do what
we have proposed, when il is offered ,ras that the
court ~ deciding the present question: will not unless it
leels called apon TO do so, decide in such way
shut out The inquiries TO which have adyered They
are not az the court will see subject 10 the objection
taken against me inqunes IN respect 70 the mining little,
because the only point they make about that question
is that as Mr. Partridge examined in chief in regard
TO The mining title, we have right re-exanne
him on the same subject The geographical question is
wholly Tree from such OBJECTION
short recess was here taken.
On reassembling,
which he conended that il utterly absurd 10 talk of
convctng the defendant geographical mistakes tba,
II made no difference whether his mines were in San
Luis Poosi or Qnetaro provided il were sufficiently
shown that he had mnes and that fact had already been
well established by Colonel Abbott and Captain So.
cum All the evidence which had been given sufficiently
showed that this section OF country not explored with
sufficient accuracy as 10 predicate positively whether
there were no mines within certain limit Their ex,
istence within the prescribed limit, far distance
concerned, had been sufficiently proved; and the
question as to whether they this that side of
gwen straight line was not which would affect the
jury or with which the time of the court should be
wasted.
! The DIsTRIcT ATTORNEY The previous rulings of the
court offers particular maps On the gene ques-
on the rule OF evidence is that maps may be admssb
aspuoc documentary evidence or on the ground OF their
relating to matters OF public interest Il Phil Ey, 276 n
Maps, showing the boundaries OF town and parishes,
admissible II aPpear that they have been made BY per-
/ The Court The Court is of opinion that the witness,
Mr. Partridge having been only partially
as to seeing he deed ITS appearance &c., be may he ex
ahmed as rebutlng evidence, and to meet the testimony
adduced by the defendant IN reference 10 tue mining title,
provided he has thing OF that description say when
he has not already sworn TO; but il must be confined
strictly 10 the matter of defence for the rule is that the
evidence in reply must bear directly indirectly upon
the subiectmaie OF defence and ought not 10 consist OF
matter unconneced with defence, and tend
ing to con,roven or dispute it, His honor here read
i from Russell on Crimes, pp 90, $40 But The wit
ness can say nothing of what the alcade officer in
charge OF the paper communicated to him. That Is
pure hearsay.
The remarks will apply 10 the other evidence
erTed TO IN relation TO the topography and geography OF
rearo What mas been adduced by the United States in
chief must not be repeated, either by maps oral iesl
mony Witnesses have testified by the week on this
branch OF the and il allowed 10 Teterae, the same
circle may be faversed od infnum, which cannot be
permitted The evidence TO be adiuced must conform
strictly to the defence, and meet what il has adduced
| Cumulative evidence cannot be heard
What would be the effect Of the mines being situated
in Quee,ao and not in Lagunas If the jury shall be-
eve that the defendan, had aud worked mines in either
the court is thought by The counsel who last addressed
IL, must decide ia settling the question II is not my
duty IN considering the point made 10 express any opln
ION on this important, suggestion,
James X Partridge recalled
Mr.. May. Describe the appearance Of the mining
deed that you the alcalde's office at Lagunllas.
Mr.. Bradley objected TO the evidence.
The Court ! lhhk they may ask with reference to
the appearance OF the mining deed, that brought
out by your examination The witness cannot say
a word about what the alcalde said.
| MIR. May. We have right 10 question the witness
as far as Their cross examination extended.
The Court. You have not that right You must con-
fine yourself strictly 10 defence.
The District Attorney. When the witness was previ-
ousy the stand this deed had not been produced.
| The Court. That is wholly Immateral. You can
only ask him about the appearance Of the deed, and you
cannot 20 into the re examination again. knew that
very often is called back and made 10 say the
same thing again, but II irregular. do not sup
pose that gen,lemen wao TO beat the matter out like
Mr. May. We wish TO examine the witness in regard
10 the points on which he was examined by Mr.. Brad
ley
The Court You canno, do that now The time for
doing 50 has passed.
Mr. May We are, then shut ou, from those inquiries
on this subject with reference 10 which we have never
| asked him single question.
The Court You have 10 blame for that but
yourself
The District Attorney The witness on the stand took
copy Of portion OF the mining deed which the
alcalde's Office
The Court And il is on ,ha, ground that you al.
lowed TO ask with reference 10 the appearance OF that
deed As the court has already decided you must con-
fine yourself strictly 10 the defence You may ask
whether the witness the original deed but you can
not 90 the whole cross examination.
Mr. May. ITO The wiiness.) Describe the appearance
OF the mining title in the alcalde's Office at Langunillas,
a portion OF which you copied .l. r. ~
Ans. The original paper, of which copied portion,
sewed in amongst some records OF the year l84t.
1t was uniformly. though differently, stained from the
documents before and behind IT The paper going be.
fore and the folio wing IT, torn in the place,
but the original deed Itself was not torn in correspond
ing manner Here the witness explained TO the court
that turning the original deed under, and placing the
tear OF the paper that went before II the tear of the
following paper, he found that they fitted exacty.l
Mt Bradley Was any part OF the deed torn !
Ans No part OF the deed was mutilaed or torn. The
papers between which j, was sewed were iorn
Mr.. May. Were they all sewed together, composing
one document
Ans. There number OF papers tied together
among which was the deed.
Cues Were there any other deeds IN the bundle
Ans. II the only mining title in the bundle.
Mr.. Bradley. Did you examine the others
Ans. Yes, sir | read the signatures on the other
ceedings of one sort or the other-sus, suppose. be-
fore the magistrate II
Mr. May Did you observe any other appearances
abou, that paper besides those you have stated 4
Ans The deed stained In uniform manner, but
The documents preceding and following ii stained
sfatna in mia