The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-03-30

cp,u,n.t COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
SHeifiiHe COLUMBIA. .

r -
award from the late Mexican Board OF Commls,
sioners.) Messrs. Philip R. FendaiI. en.su
States District Attorney. and Henry r. a Bradley
James NJ Carlisle and B. F. Perry, OF Soutn
Carolina, for the defendant.
FIFTEENTH DAY-Iassday, aaTch ~.
The DIsrRIcT ATTORNEY resuneo .ne argument
which was pending sn On the admissibility Of ev
dsnce 10 move the forgery OF the mining title and
Accommodating DISPOSITIONS, and cited numerous
tSnr;t;es no show that the evidence was admis-
s;hle The case of Smith, q Russell on Crimes,
772,) quoted by Mr.. Perry yesterday, was the only
decision against it's admissibility, and that case
had been overrnied again an1 again, ne quoted
776; ii Law Library, p. SO, Wills on Circumstan-
tial Evidence; the case of Yoke in Russell and
Ryan, PIP. TIT, 77s; q Darlington and Payne, 1854.
and 10 Com Law, 400; 6 Barnweli and CresswelI,
las, and l3 Com. Law, 1913; 2 Starkie's Cases, 81;
Russell, IT'S, note; Robinson's case in Leigh,
LILO; 2 Leach, 749; Wentworth's case in Car
rington and Payne, 433; Dunn's case in Pixies
Ark. Reports, 229; Tavener's case in Darlington,
note A, 449; and Wiley's case in Bosanquet and
Fuller. @,8a1.a-.
Mr.. CARLISLE cited Wharton's Am Grim. Law,
l6S The corpus deicti must be proved before other
facts can be adduced. What ia the corpus deficit
in this case unless it is the corrupt taking of the
false oath, with guilty knowledge of the falsity
OF the oath? The United States had endeavored to
prove, and supposed they had proved, that all the
statements in the memorial were utterly false and
that instead of having the mine, be represented
was on the Pacific peddling small wares. If this
go, IT the oath to the memorial was false one
was absurd to suppose that the accused took that
oath without guilty knowledge of the falsity of
the oath. The falsity of that memorial, and the
Innocence of the accused in taking the oath, were
wholly inconsistent. The United States would not
stand in any better position if they prove the pa
pers to be forged.
He referred to case where an English Judge
admitted the facts of one on the trial of ano
Their, upon the express stipulation BY the prosecu
ton to enter an acquittal in the second case He
offered the United States to admit his offered
evidence as to the forgery Of these papers, provided
the indictment for forgery be Withdrawn.
MIR. FENDALL declined any such agreement.
Mr.. CARLISLE resumed his argument, and re-
viewed the several cases cited by the counsel on
the other side.
The CoURT. 1t is proposed to prove that the pa
pers No 2 the mining title and accompanying
depositions-are forged.
The defendants counsel object to this course on
various grounds. LIST. An indictment is pending
and untried for the forgery of these papers. 3D.
That the alleged forgeries, if committed, were
made eight months after the oath charged to be
false was taken. 3d. 1t was within the discretion
OF the court, which should be exercised TO exclude
the proof offered.
do not think the tendency of an Indictment
charging the defendant with forging the papers,
which 1t is now proposed to show are false affects
the question. Doubts existed formerly on this
subject, but they have been removed, and never
had any good foundation. Sd. 1t is said to be within
the discretion of the court to admit or reject this
evidence. True, but prefer to be regulated and
controlled by established rules and principles.
Id The fabrication of the papers, if they have
been fabricated was, it is said, subsequent to the
swearing. The argument of the United States
considers 1t to be lmmaterial whether the matter
offered In evidence, or fact proposed to be proved
10 snow guilty knowledge, occurred prior or sub
sequent to the principal fact charged. This pro.
position, as asserted, is too general. l have had
frequent occasion to consider this question and
have record Of an opinion delivered by me at the
June term, 1S47, in the case of United Stat . vs.
Noah Leeds, or Lee. This decision the Court
read, and then resumed:I
This opinion contains the law of the question
before the court. The possession of counterfeit
bank note or notes at the time of the passing
charged, or shortly before the passing, for which
he is indicted, has always been received If subse-
quenty counterfeit paper is found on the defend
ants person, it must be in some way connected
with the principal charge, or be of the same man
ufacture This is the rule
Here the memorial, in the making of which the
false swearing is charged to have occurred states
that the accused had mine in the State of San
Luis Potosi; that was the foundation of claim
and filed as such. Subsequently the papers which
the United States say false, and offer to prove
TO De SO, were procured to sustain the allegation in
the memorial that he had such mine; and were the
means OF inducing the commissioners to augment
the amount OF the award after the commissioners
had directed that the claim was valid Ia il not
toen connected with the memorial and the veri.
cation OF it required by the commission, without
which the claim could not even be considered?
The memorial and proofs submitted with it were
the ground OF the decree that the claim was valid
Tor something; the mining title and accompany.
ing dispositions afterwards filed were with other
proofs, the foundation of the decree fixing the
amount due on the claim, and thew were esneci
ally the means of increasing the amount preyi
ously thought of by the commissioners The test-
mony offered if made out to the satisfaction of the
jury, would tend to establish the charge made, of
which one OF the prlnci pal features is guilty know
ledge. 1t has relation to the issue. The case Of
the United States us Wood, ID Peters, is q cogent
authority on this question.
The objection ia overrued.
IRe DlsTRIcT ATTORNEY then said that the pa .
pers which they intended to offer proof of being
forged were the mining title filed by the accused
and the dispositions attached to it,
.Jacobo Sanchez Navarro recalled and examined
Mr.. Bowes acting as interpreter mining title
shown TO witness.)
Cues. Mr.. Bowes, ask him if from his know
ledge of the handwriting of Don Julian de los
Reyes, that ls his gnaure to that paper?
Ans. 1t appears to him it is not bis signature
CUES Can he point out the difference between
the genuine signature and this one?
14ns He observes that the form of the letters nd
the scroll or rubric, as it called is not the same
CUES What is the rubric; explain what he
means by that?
Ans. This mark-this scroll underneath /Pbe
flourish beneath the signature.)
CUES. Can he point out the particular difference
between the signature to this paper and the genu-
inc one?
Ans. The form of the letters in the rennine s;e-
nature is better than it is here and conforms more
to the Spanish letters.
Rues 10 understand him to saw that il il his
opinion that this is not genuine signature of Ju.
liam de los Reyes?
Ans He believes it is not.
Gues. ASK MIN to state what opportunity he has
had to know the handwriting and signature of Ju.
liam de los Reyes?
MIR; BRADLEY objected The United States had
asked X, all about this very fully yesterday
The CouRr said it would be very good thing
If there were no repettons, but the question could
certainly be asked again. WIN
Ans tie had opportunities since his youth while
living in San Luis Potosi, of having friendly reIa.
tons with him and his family; for that reason and
on accosnt of it he has visited bis house. and after
wards some business of his (witness) has caused
MIN 10 nave business relations with him IA well
verbally as in writing, and account of this has
visited MIN at bis house, and has seen him write
Ithe witness ~ hiti'
CUES. Ask him did did not Julian de ,os
Reyes instruct him to write? oo aug
Ans. He received various instructions in writino
from him - i'hg
Cues. Ask him if this is the same Julian dc los
Reyes who was Governor Of San Luis Potosi on the
18th of July, 1850? va 'A'
Ans. 1t is the same.
CUES. Does he know if he is now living or dead?
Mr.. BRADLEY. Of his personal knowfedee. not
ruha hn has hoard law