The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-05-13
FoRIY sEvsNIn pAY-SAruRpAY. MAY !. ls53.

foRrYsEyEAIH DAY-SATuRDAY, MAY ?, 1898
I'm coNTIsuATIoNl
The DISTRICT ATTORNEY Mr., May referred TO the
rule but the gentleman atopted another rule, and treated
with paleInal iontness. hold The rule 10 be entirely
different The Indictment is for false swearing, aud the
prosecution IN support Of Il have gone on TO negative he
avernep IN the memorial Of the defendant OF the exist
ot these mines in the State OF San Luis Potos A
number OF witnesses have been cxaminei and among
them Captain Barry, and they all testified nat they had
explored the district OF Lagunillas in most thorough
manner, and had heard OF such mines To
question put'to Captain Barry, in the cross-examna-
ton, whether he had looked into the Lagunllas ohcc
for mining title, he replied he had, but did not hnd any
there This they say shows that thought the alcaldes
office at Lasunillas was a place where mining tile
could be iound. But is not this plain nons'gaitu We
supps sed from The evidence in this cause that all sorts
OF efforts would be made TO find mining titles in Laguni
las, and else to prop up this trand and the
agents went wherever they thought The conspIralors
would place nniag title We did not suppose mlhpg
title ought to be found in Lagunlllas Captain Barry
went there and to great many other places but could
neither see hear OF the mines this mining title.
Now, the gentlemen say, because negatvng the mining
title evidence which might be given chief, tha,
we are 10 bring all sorts OF evidence 10 bear that part
OF the case, matter how completely may have made
i OUT, thus anticipating the evidence that they may
BRING forward. They have undertaken to repe the
negative evidence which we had given. Captain Barry
said that he saw no mining title al Lagunlllas, and
the gentlemen come forward and say there was one.
and on tue 18Th of April last they first produce TO the jury
the mining tite 10 which reference has been made. II
was part OF their case, and could not go into The
contents OF the paper uuu alter II mad been produced
Whatever we might have heard, we could not have
suned that they were going TO offer II. They might
as we'll that we should have offered the famous let
ers OF John Charles Gardiner, which read 10 The
court The other day, without waiting for the time whea
they would regularly be IN evidence Until they should
negative the evidence which produced
not IN position 10 Introduce any witnesses to repe their
evidence. tE..
Reference is made 10 the deed which John Charles
Gardiner copied the 10Th of November, 1851. 1t is
said that the mining title part of case, because
- al
tending H. We pursued the rule of practice, and in
to The inquiry on the crossexamlnatlon OF their
witness. They offered in their examination OF
Mr.. Partridge the deed obtained ty Abbot and Socum in
November 1852 Mr. Partridge pressed lar, that
he stated some particulars which had satisfied the
missloEeIs that this deed and further fraud
What proof we have offered the subject was through
their own witness on the crossexaminalion. Could
mpeach hs deed nnill 1t had been offered II canno,
be denied that until specific evidence is offered the
part OF the defence the prosecution rs not in conilios
10 Jebu and until that deed read 10 The jury the
18th OF April, we were in no condition 10 look into its
anteCedeDt history 10 show lis appearance when by
the commissioners or anything else about IL Ii we had
offered at that time 10 give evidence with reference TO the
deed sand 10 have been found in the alcaldes Office a,
Lagunlllas, The court would have very properly stopped
us. The only question is, whether we have lost the
nsbt because the counsel on the other side thought III
The 9th OF April six days before they offered the deed to
the jury, TO 60 out OF their course and put questions TO
Mr.. Partridge which led from him tending
npeach this deed Ii that be the rule il is competent
Tor the counsel Tor The defence any time shut
rebuitng evidence OF the prosecution All they have TO
do Is 10 ask some qcestons bearng upon what they sup
pose is the intention OF the prosecution TO produce and
when we come to our iebulling proof, TO object thai we
had an opportunity OF Offering IL in The examination
Chief Because they chose 10 ask the questions the
examination is that giving US an opportunity which
bound TO avail ourselves of and interrupt the
regular progress oil lie case 10 go into evidence for which
there Is no foundation laid before the coun' We did
not pursue the inquiry when the facts out the
crosse xamin siion hen what followed t&e testimony
of Mr.. Partridge which they look upon with kind o,
philosophc contempt, and about which they would not
ssya word except ior their zeal for the purity and entire
integrity oi the rule OF practice for which they contend
They did not feel that the testimony OF Mr. Partridge
was quite so important, though II led TO most exfaol-
dlnary incident in this cuase.
L They have SAID that we were trying 10 show By MIR
Partridge that the deed not there the 9th OF No
vember, The day which Abbott and Slocum say that
they ob,ooed copy there, and that they would show
that John Charles Gardiner got copy ffoca The
office long before that time. The copy was produced
after Mr.. Partridge had gwen his testimony, and be.
cause, they avowed that his testimony tended TO i'm
peach the integrity OF the deed which Abbott and Slo.
cum copied on the 9th Of November, 1854 Evidence
with reference TO the deed is before The Jury, and am
now arguing whether or not this is rebullng evidence
Until the objection had been made, | could not believe
that IL would be said IT was not rebung evidence.
uDdertand ebutng evidence 10 be evidence introduced
to meet the set op by The defence The deed found
in Lagunias ~ November, 1852, set up here the
18th OF April aud they could not have placed in the
predcameut of Offering 10 do what the court would have
put us down Tor attempting 10 do.
We have had sumo little controversy about the iden-
uty OF the papers Now, how could we know that MIR.
Parnire was ,esyng about the paper that they had in
their possession As soon as 1t was exhibited
Tor ward 10 meet H. Ii is said that had notice that
was m their possession suppose had; bur had we
any notice that they meant TO produce il in evidence
We might have expected that but act upon
tbs probability Had not a right, and were we not
bound to wait until they had offered III
good deal has been said here about matters which
conceive to be collateral 10 the question: and especially
With reference 10 The fact that Mr. Abbott offered 10 show
The commissioners where The mines were feterae the
answer which has been made often the suggestion
ITSELF and II Is PLAIN one There oder on the
part OF the commissioners of reward OF $500 for exact
Information in regard 10 the mines. Though the oder
not in terms confined TO Mericans that its OBJ
vious construction. IL was the local know-
edge OF the people OF the country but not human be-
log OF the population there came forward 10 clam The
reward Mr. Abbott Of The party of the defendant which
had gone out there proposed 10 give the commissioners
The information required He told that his oder
would be accepted, provided Dr. Gardiner would say that
the mines proposed 10 be shown those upon which
his claim based The commissioners naturally
enough thought that il would be wild goose chase 20
and TO have DR.. Gardiner saying This is not my mihc
DR. Gardiner refused TO writing that the mines pro-
posed to be shown to The commissioners by Col Abbott
belonged 10 him II Dr. GatJinefs counsel had advised
him not 10 show bis mines 10 the commissioners which
he ough TO have all possible hazards rather than
not 10 done, he did not up the spirit OF that
advice because has been proved that he and heard
the correspondence which took place between Mr. AT
bon and the chief OF the commission, in which the
former offered TO point out the mines DR.. Gardiner
ought have done by another what he refused to do
BY himself aod his conduct showed that the offer made
the part OF Abbott and TO which he refused TO give his
sanction, was trick.
Perhaps Mr.. Partridge may be able 10 throw light on
the mining ulle which they think OF so much Importance
produce jpies OF II, We could not ask him