The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-02

CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.

CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF |
COLUMBIA.
IREPoarHD HoR rRn aspusLIc.1
The United States George A. Gardiner, (,ndict-
ed for false swearing, in order tn procure an |
award from the late Mexican Board Of Commls,
sioners.) Messrs. Philip R. Fendall, Uniteo
States District Attorney and Henry NAY, ,ot me
United States; and Messrs. Joseph n. brnoiey' |
James M. Carlisle, and B. F. Perry OF Sootn
Carolina. for the defendaDt.
EIGHTEENTH DAY-Friday, April l.
The United States Yesterday offered to prove by
MIR. Partridge that the signatures OF Governor
Reyes, Secretary Gqsman ana francisco fernan'
were for geries, on the following grounds and in
the following terms:
0We now offer the evidence of the witness (Mr.
Partridge) as founded-lst. On his testimony of
having seen Governor Reyes, Mr.. Guzman, and
Francisco Fernandez. the project of Rio Verde,
several times sign official orders and papers in the
usual course of their official duty, and which were
not in any way connected with the commission.
I'd. On his knowledge derived from a correspond
ence between these persons and the commissioners,
OF whom he (the witness) was one, which took
place during their visit, and during its period of
ten days at San Luis in December 1852.
"Tne witness also stated that the aforesaid Mex
lean functionaries repeatedly wrote their in
the presence of the commissioners, and on their
request, in order that the commissioners might see
their signatures, (Which was one of the objects of
their vlsit,) and that the last-named signatures
were not written on the same day when the official
papers were signed. The counsel for the United
States do not offer to prove by the witness his
knowledge of the handwriting, derived from zig
nat ures written on their request. They place their
offer on the two grounds, solely and conclusvely,
which above stated"
Mr.. BRADLEY this morning resumed his argu-
ment against the admissibility of the evidence.
Messrs. May and FENDALL replied, and Mr.
CARLISLE reioined
The CouRr The modes of acquiring knowledge
OF handwriting are these: By seeing man write
2. By correspondence with him, or by seeing pa.
pers frequently which the party has signed. This
general statement embraces substantially the le-
CLIMATE modes of acquiring knowledge of hand.
writing. The true manner of gaining this know
ledge Is in the ordinary course of business. in
the correspondence which passed between them
regarding business in the indulgence of friend
ship, or in the use Of papers, bank notes for in
stance, which the pay officer of bank handles
every day.
The fact of the knowledge of the witness being
obtained lately ia not regarded entitled to inhu
ence this case-as to which the decision in John
son vs Daverner, ls Johnson Rep, l34, is very
much in point
The persons whose handwriting the offer
spects are Mexican officers of high rank, whose
handwriting must be extensively known Wit
nesses certainly could be easily obtained who are
and have been long acquainted with them, and, in
fact, one such witness has testified.
The question is, whether the United States can
send a witness to Mexico for the purpose of gain
fetal persons MIR. Partridge did go there, and
those persons wrote their names more or less
frequently, to acquaint him with their hand
writing; besides which he says he saw them
write frequently in the discharge of their official
duties, and saw letters or communications sent by
them to the commissioners. The knowledge, to
make the evidence offered admissible, must have
been acquired, as Lord Brougham said sponta-
neously; that Is, In the course of business
spondence; and this requisite it ia argued, is to be
found in this offer, because the witness saw COM
munications from the officers and saw them write
in the ordinary discharge of business, as we'll as
sign their names to famiIiarize him with their
signatures. The reason which prevailed with the
court, in excluding testimony founded on know
ledge of DEFENDANTS handwriting acquired shortly
before the trial, in Stranger Us. Searie, that
the signature might have varied from his general
mode of signing-and that decision has been
authoritative from that day to this But it is
tended that the exclusion of the testimony has
taken place only when the defendant or party has
written to qualify the witness to testify. That
would, no doubt, impress the mind more strongly
would most frequently occur-but do not that
such distinction is taken. The court ia again
asked if the party writing or testifying can have
any possible interest in this indictment it's
suit can see none But that is not involved.
The inquiry is, whether established principles and
the danger OF manufacturing testimony, and max
ing opinion for the particular case do not exclude
the evidence offered. The rule, whichever way it
shall be settled, will govern not this case only but
all cases.
II, ID
him, some other gentleman with him, that he de-
sired TO see his signature-that his errand;
and although he saw several communications
from the official addressed to the commission, and
saw him write at bis desk in a public Office at
other times during a few days visit in the city
where the officer resided. he must always have
seen him do 80 with the impression made by the
signatures, II they preceded his other observation
and the receipt Of the several communications or
if they followed, would more less etface that OBJ
servation, and the effect of the letters in either
case would be mixed up with them. If the witness
had never seen the communications referred to,
or the officer write except when he desired him to
do SO, that ne might be qualified to speak of it on
this trial. there could be question about it it
would be exactly like Stranger %. Searle, except
that the handwriting there was that q the de
fendant. Can it make any difference that he saw
about the same time officer write at his official
desk in the ordinary discharge of business, and
saw communications signed by him? | think not,
for bis mind would still have the image of the sig.
natures made on request before it.
The great danger attending the admission of
such evidence, the facility of connecting evidence
which it would furnish, the danger of corrupt ac-
ton to which it would open the door in any in
which il should become necessary to establish or
to discredt handwriting, c5liges me to ovsrrule
the offer.
Mr.. PayLidge recalled, and testified as to
having seen no mine in Laguinillas; of the condi-
ton Of the roads ways for travel in that district;
of its being impossible to transport wheel carriages
over them; of the impossibility of transporting
steah engine w La unLas Oy those roaus UT uiuie
paths.
On cross examination he described the general
typographical features of the country az seen by
him on the route he travelled South of Lagun.
illas he saw considerable stream of water-a
hundred yards wide.
The court, at four O'Clock, adjourned till tomor-
row.
SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE.
FRIDAY, April ], 1853.
Mr.. MASON asked leave to withdraw the me.
mortal and accompanying papers Of Francis w.
Rice, late United States consul at Acapulco rela-
tive To certain Outrages committed on him and