New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-05-07

the witness the proper foundation hal not been aid here
being no denial Of sry Of these papers being in the wit
ness handwriting third that they arr Considered the acts
ri az accope they cannot be received bec&rSs not done
in frtkerspce Of the common object bat AL eJccp; TIE
letters Of a. subsequent 20 is sttanmen-ioGrta that
they collateral ard fh that they are not reoaing
evidence The United insisted upon the co npsts ncy
Il The evience-frst 20 contradict the wness-secont
tie acts of accomplce-thrd, ss sets Of an ageoi
q The defendant. There at Indictment against
tie witness for the offence IN relation % tue same
transaction pending this Court The question Toui be
considered on the ground that the defendant and witness
acted together IN the preparation 70 support the csn OF
the former before The commission, and in procuring rs al
lowAncs Whether the claim lust unus: belonged
o. the Jury decide Assuming that they acted together
how stood the law Ii admitted BY the United S;ifes
tfai statement Of an aegef partner N crime beng
rarrative Of past transactions could b received against
h fellow bufCnly such declarations accompany the trans
actions during the conspiracy and this could not be denied
for the broken current If decisions leave room for
cOu;Tovesiing this well established doctrine But was
urged The supposed conspiracy between The defendant and
witness had for rs object the OF the money Obned tor
TIE claim. That that desire - strong now IS was
when the original plan laid and keeps Ae con,pEacy
this moment and secondly that the oect of wit
was 10 get his brother OF the Scrape SaPposng
this to b. the Court did see how could be con
ueced with the original conspiracy The purpose OF that
was answered. award made, and the money
paid 10 the defendant his attorney The deadani had
gone ~ Europe and the witness Mexico Il pre-
sumtG from the Of the letters offered AZ this
s9ge o the business there uoh0g c0nspre about
II subsequent conspiracy took place in rsStOn q the de-
The summer fail OF 1851, for the defendant in
Europe when the Indictment trying found
according 10 evidence heretofore aiGuced Iais ndct
meut f false swearing in - II then complete.
II Grim not committed How the acts Of accom-
pce years after the oense charged 10 have been
perer I'd and months after It's success accomplished
could be lawfully used substntative evidence against
tn dcfenC ant "a, Court did not perceive The Court
gud the other ground which the letters had been offered,
IL come rgtb and in conclusion they could not be
ceiS ed u the acts admiss Of cOnieder
ate affect the defendant directly the gr0uaa
that the witness agent accessory Of the defend
ant but that such parts OF these letters went to contra
dict the witness could be received leaving the proof OF the
han dwrtng open question for the Jury The letter
dated San Jose MraboTes addressed "a Anthony QUrOs,
costers and could not be read All the others were
dated after the 9Th IF May ISL most Of them to Don
Manuel Project OF Rio Verde and excluded
EXCEPT the dates Of No evidence th9t witness at
San Luis Putos the 9th and 10th OF Now ISL the date
of No H. San Luis Potosi Nov 49, lsJl aud the passage IN
IT, Tell the exact position of my brotherss mines their
distance from Rio Verde. Laguivilas etc. ETC. and the
passage In the letter of 9Th Nav lsjl have already told
com posed Of many others that We he and bave bought
between us twas unnecessary for the Court % say how
far this evidence ought 30 be- excluded not rebutng
The pass ges admitted were then read TO ths Jury
Can't n aitOX recalled by the prosecution who pro
posed to ask hmdeirndan and his brother both being
pie,eut-which he saw At MazatlAn
objected TO- but objection overruled
Tie question WAS put witness answered Saw the ac
cused never knew his brother. The witness WAS then
cross examined.
Tie vi nesses Bowers Jones and Lewis were also re
called and all positive that George Charles G rdner
tia ersou they saw They were each examiner IN re-
gard 20 d various matters referred 10.
Mr. Psrrdge was recalled TO identity copy OF the
mining tile
The Court then adjourned