The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-05-13

,he esss Of the dsSsscs Aas taksa The ssus cot Of
hat osnss. asA. - ws ~. tase ne STATE of Que
retaro and tviss to palm od the old mines there a.
these Of The defendant, the Cevssumeot y fpr the
hrss time Afforded The opcoetusi&y Of slowing What
and where those minss are, BY every THAI by
which the truth Of geographical 6cts can b made
cls.r to the mind Of the jury. probabilities to do
that BY the court would be 10 slev the defends Mt
TO impose a new fraud upon the jury. The Gov
eminent simply AXIS the opportunity to prevent
this.
have been thus frank and clear in stating the
whole extent Of the proposition in answer to the
argumeo< Of the learned counsel the other side.
vho say they will object to all further keographi
cal evidence. ! do not think they can object to it
on the ground Of the consumption Of time, because
they have asked almost innumerab!e geogr nphical
questions Of witnesses 10 whom we put simple IN
erroRatory in regard to the identity OF the defend
ant and bis brother. Where the geographical IN
quiry is 20 vital and pertinent, and conclusive on
the question on which this jury nswotn' 10 smut
t out would be, conc Give, the greatest hardship
which could be committed against the Govern
ment and the cause of justice. Gentlemen can
object, If they choose, to the admlssoihty OF the
specific evidence BY which we mean 10 DO what
we have proposed, when it ia offered. trust that
the court, in deciding the present question, will
not unless it feels called upon to do 80, decide in
such way a. to shut out the inquiries to which |
have adverted They not, the court will see,
subject TO the objection taken against the inquiries
in respect to the mining title, because the only
point they make about that question 10, that az
Mr.. Partridge was examined in chief in regard to
the mining title, we have no right now to re exa
mine him on the same subject. The geographical
question s wholly Tree from such an objection
A short recess vas here taken.
On Resembling
MIR. BRADLEY replied, in a speech of about an
hour, in which be contended that ii was utterly
absurd to talk of convicting the defendant on a
geographical mistake; that IT made no difference
whether his mines were in San Luis Potosl or
Querearo, provided it were sufficiently shown
,ba hal had hat fact had nir U hoe n
well established by Colonel Abbot and Captain
Slocum. All the evidence which had been given
suffic ienily showed that this section Of country
was not explored with sufficient accuracy as TO
predicate positively whether there were no mines
within a certain limit Their existence within the
prescribed limit-so far al distance was concerned
had been sufficiently proved; and the mere ques
ton to ether they we're this or that side oil
given straight line was not one which would of.
feet the jury, with which the time of the court
should be wasted. 4a.r..
The DIsrslCr ATTORNEY. The previous ruin Ga
of the court were on offers Of particular maps
On the general question, the rule of evidence i.
that maps may De admissib public documen-
tary evidence, or on the ground of their relatin
to matters of public interest.-(l Phil. Ev., 27t
NJ Maps, showing the boundaries of towns and
parishes, are admissible if it appear that they have
! been made by persons of adequate knowledge
| Il Greenl. Ev., 1879
The CoURr. The court ia of opinion that the
witness, MIR. Partridge, having been cross exam
ined only partially "a to seeing the deed-it:
Appearance, &c.-he may be examined, rebuff
ting evidence, and to meet the testimony adduced
by the defendant in reference to the mining title
provided he has any thing Of that desc rption tc
say which he has not already sworn to; but i,
must be confined strictly to the matter Of defence
for the rule is that the evidence in reply must bea
directly or indirectly upon the subject. matter oil
defence, and ought not to consist of new matter
unconnected with the defence, and not tending to
controvert or dispute it. His honor here read from
Russell ON Grimes, PIP 9l9, 900 But the witness
can say nothing of what the alcalde officer in
charge of the paper communicated to him. That
10 pure hearsay.
The same remarks will apply to the other evil
dence referred to in relation to the topography and
geography of the county Of Laguinilas aud ada
cent country Of Queretaro. What has been ad-
duced by the United States in chief must not Se
repeated, either by maps or oral testimony.
Witnesses have testified by the week on this bra nc
OF the case, and II allowed to reiterate, the same
circle may be travsrsed od minimum which cannot
be permitted. The evidence TO be adduced must
conform strictly to the defence, and meet what it
has adduced. Cumulative evidence cannot be
heard. What would be the effect Of the mines
being situated in Queretaro and not in Laguinil-
las-if the jury shall believe that the defendant
had and worked mines in ether-tbe court, it is
thought by the counsel who last addressed it,
must decide in settling the question. 1t ia my
duty, in considering the point made, to express
any opinion on this important suggestion.
James r. Partridge, recalled
ing deed that you saw at the aIcade's office at
LaRulnillas?
Mr. BADLY objected to the evidence.
The CoUar- think they may ask with reference
brought out By your cross minaton. The
witness cannot say word about what the aIcalde
said.
MIR. MAY. We have a right to question the
witness as far as their Contamination ex
tended.
The CoUsr. You have not that right You must
coutine yourself strictly to defence.
The DIsTRIcr ATTORNEY. When the witness
previously on the stand this deed had not been
produced
The COURT. That is wholly immaterial. You
can only ask him about the appearance of the
deed, and you cannot go into the reorganization
again. know that very often a man 10 called
back and made to say the same thing over again.
out 1t IS irregular 1 do not suppose that gentle
men want to beat the matter out like gold
leaf.
regard to the points on which he examined by
Mr.. Bradley.
The CoUsr. You cannot do that now The time
Tor doing so has passed.
Mr.. MAY. We are then shut ont from these in
quiries on this subject, with reference to which we
have never asked him a single question
Inc COURT. You have no one to blame for that
but yourself
The DIsraIcr ATTORNEY. The witness on the
stand took copy of a portion of the mining deed
which was in the alcade's office.
The CoURr. And it ia on that ground that you
are allowed to ask with reference to the appear
ance OF that deed. As the court has already de-
cldeo, you must conhne yourself strictly to the
defence. You may ask whether the witness saw
the original deed, but you cannot 60 over the
whole cross examination
Mr.. MAY. (To the witness.) Describe the APP
pearance of the mining title in the alcaldes office
at Lagulnillas, portion of which you copied
-dns. The original paper, of which copied a
portion, was sewed in amongst some recon DE- of
the year 1874. 1t was uniformly though differ
emily stained from the documents before and be-
hind IT. The paper going before and the one fol.
loving II were torn in the place, but the
original deed itself was not torn in a correspond
ing manner.
Here the witness explained to the court that
on turning the original deed under, and placing
the tear OF the paper that went before it the
tear OF the following paper, he found that they
fitted exactly.l
Mr.. BRADLEY. Was any part Of the deed torpf
dns No part of the deed was muilated or torn.
The papers between which it was sewed were
torn.
Mr.. MAY. Were they all sewed together, com.
posing one document?
Ans. There were a number of papers tied tope-
Their, among which was the deed
Quss. Were there any other deeds in the bunds2
Xdns Ii was the only mining title in the bundle.
Mr.. BRADLEY. Did you examine the others
Ana. Yes, sir read the signatures on the 9TH
err documents, and their character. They were
civil proceedings Of one sort or the other-suts,
suppose, before the magistrate.
MIR MAY. Did Won Obserya any other aDnear-