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

CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
faEPoRrBD Foa RBPUBLfc.1
FORTY.THIRD DAY-nssday. May 3.
fiN coNrINuArIoN.

FORTY.THIRD DAY-n4s.day. May 3.
(iN CONTRIBUTIONS.
The papers previously rsfsrred 70 having oeen
The DnraIcr ArroaHsr proceeded 70 explain
the grounds of the admissbity Of the papers ~
evidence. lat A contradiesing the r,iness:
Robinson. 30; and Long us Hitchcock, 9th Car
riurton and Paine, 619, we're In conflict with the
case Of Crowley -. Page, 7th Darlington and
Paine, 7sI, which seemed to have bsen better con.
,idered 1t was true that the cass Of Long vs
Hitchcock was q little latsr Than that Of Crowley
rs Pagt; but il was difficult TO get over Judge
Parker's objection, that if the rule were that evi
mitted nor denied vas not admirable, "you could
never contradict witness who said be could not
remember" The circuit and criminal courts il
was said, had adopted that rule. The criminal
court had done so reluctantly, and under the pres
sure Of precedent 1t would not extend the rule
beyond the facts and circumstances of cases to
which u had felt constrained to apply it. Those
were all cases Of verbal statements. The nor mi
r'eordo OF the witness u. Charles Gardiner) went
not only 40 10 the act of having written the letter.
&c, or any knowledge Of their subect-matter, but
TO the knowledge of his own handwriting. The
rsason of the rule to verbal statements even con.
ceding that rule to be ~ contended for, did not
apply TO trrihen evidence. 1 Crecnleaf On Evi.
dence, 462, 46s, <64; Phillips on Evidence, ass.
Several of those papers directly conr adicted the
positive declarations OF the witness made on the
stand. Others contained statements 90 worded
that the jury might properly infer such contradic
ton. This was sufficient reason why the court
ahould send the documents TO the jury, As to the
right of the jury, in certain cases, to construe
writings. see Greenl. Ev., SAC; Starkie Ev.,
625, Sd ed.
On the I'd ground, that the witness is an accom-
phce:
Mr.. Philip johnson testified that the brothers
called on him in reference to a claim to be pre-
sented before the commissioners in l649, and that
George A. Gardner, in presence of his brother
John Charles, called it "oay claim This the
only ella i'm before the commissioners in the name
of either Of them. One of tho earliest branches Of
evidence the part Of the prosecution bad been to
show an aiibi on the part of George A. Gardiner.
He in his memorial that be commenc ed
mining operations in July, 1874, and continued
them industriously and assduousy until he was
expelled by the Mexican authorities in ls46. The
memorial, as we'll depositions file. showed
that TO conduct operations OF the magnitude |
claimed and requiring the constant vigilance they
did, he must have been at he mines all the time |
Witnesses broug ht forward to show that he \
was, between S+4 and sat, at places her than the
mines He proved 10 have been at Maxatian |
eighteen hundred miles from Hgunalas. in June, |
lss6-the very month in which he swore in his /
M MOI al ne had invested immense sums of money \
in building haciendas, purchasing mules and EN- |
pioying Of science. 1t had been proved |
that he was 1900 miles distant from Laguinillas At
the time he alleged he bad made any profit from
bis mines, medilating visit to South America to
buy merchandise; and wanting somebody to help
him with money The Science said there q
blonder and that J. Charles Gardiner had been
mistaken for his brother George. John Charles
himself finally put upon the stand. The proper
time 10 have enabled the jury to determine the /
value of the evidence to reout the abb, when
Mcssrs. Bo~es, Maddox, Rowan, and others were
giving their testimony. He ought TO have been
brou ght forward then, and they should have been /
INTERCEPTED TO whether they might not have
rnists ken him for his brother. When put on the
stand he testified 10 the abr, though he frat tes
titled to the mining title. Notwithstanding the
defendants counsel had a copy of the mining title
in their possession since January or February,
1852, they thoughtit desirable that Messrs Slocum
and Abbot should go to Laguinillas for another. |
The other copy had been offered in evidence.
Mr. Partridge, one of the commissioners, when
pressed hard on mis- cross examination to give oil |
the reasons why the commissioners had not &C
cepted the invitation of MIR. Abbot TO go ga
wild goose chase" besides giving the sufficient |
reason that the mmssion satisfied the |
mining title got at Laguinillas a forgery, |
went on to tell Why it was a forgery. Then was
offered the copy Of the mining title which had |
been in the possession of the defence since Febru-
ary, 1851. The court said that they had not given
evidence enough; that, though they bad proved
the seals and signatures to other papers, they bad
not to that one. Their mining title, which they
had rested to repel the evidence of the prosecu-
ton, having been assaied, John Charles G Gardiner
Wal put the stand. He had been put there to |
maintain the issue the part of the defence. The
allowed the Introduction OF evidence of the forgery
Of the papers to prove the scientsr. Any thing
was pertinent which went to rebut the proof of
sctsntsr, produced by the United States By J. |
Charles Gardiner they proved he get that mining
title the 10Th of November, $751; and 20 far
sought to brush away the scient<r of the prosecu.
maintain the issue on the part of the defence; and
was De MIR. Fendau) to be told that that man wac
beyond attempts to prove that he 10 an accom-
plice of the defendant
The testimony which had been furnished to the
Boa I'd of Com issioners defective in FORM and
j. Charles went to Mexico and obtained what has
turned out to be the most important testimony Of
fered in the if il be believed that the mining
title shows the truth of the averment in the memo
rial, that the Huasteca mines were in the moun.
tains of Laguinillas. This 10 The in " hch the
books all cay that one man 10 responsible Tor the
criminal acts of another. The learned gentleman
cited the following authorities: Roscoe, D. "a; Uni
ted States rs. Goodipg, IL Wheaton, 400, 46S, 40
The DIsrRIcr ATTORNEY not having concluded
at five O'Clock, the court adjourned.
Copy of the mining fitls offered in evidence by the
defendant on the 2Sd Of 4pril, reeetsd by the |
ceSut on the 25th, and o6irmsd the day. |
admitted the evidence Of John Charles Gard |
Sn<r.
Copy in due form of the denounc ent and pos.
session of the abandoned mineral district called |
the "Poder de Dios,' which comprehends the
mines of the 'Santisima Trinidad ,""Nuestra Sc
nora de los Dolores" and "Senor San Jose ;" which
" ere denounced by the American citizen, George |
A. Gardiner, on the 18th July, 1874, and posses
Of the same year. 1'u a yubric) |
], the citizen Genaro Vega, constitutional al
calds of the t)wn of Laguinillas, Department of |
Rio erde, in the State Of San Luis Potos certify
in all due form Of law that there exists in the
chives of this court, of the year lS44, document
relative To the announcement of the abandoned |
mineral district, called the 'sPoder Dios % made
on the 18th July OF said year by DR.. George A. |
Gardiner, OF which copy ia given to his brother, |
J. Charles Gardiner, on account OF his having |
asked il in petition of the 10th instant, and in
order to comply with the decree Of the same date
written 1T the foot of the said petition; and it
ia ordered that the petition be inserted before the
said document, it says as follows
Third seal, so cents. TO the Constitutional AL.
calde OF Laguinalias, Judge Of the Cocrt Of lat
Instance:
4, J. Charles Gardiner, American citizen,
TENT orarly in this town, appear before you IN the
most leg manner, and, reserving my right to the
proper protests, say: that the 18th July Of the
last year of ls44, my brother, DR.. George Gardi-
ner, denounced an abandoned mineral district,
called the sPodsr de Dos, recording three mines,
called the "Sa ntisma Trinidad ,""Nuestra Seho-
ra de loo Dolores" and "Se nor San Jose Of which
possession was given him the 4th of September
OF the same year; all of which, is the custom in
ike cases, was reduced TO writing Use form6 Ell
esysdi<rte yespeetico which document must existin