The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-06-04
The Gardiner Trial.
CRIMINAL, COURT FOR THE DISTRICT or CoLUM
BIA.

The DISTRICT ATTORNEY continued his argument as
follows;
will now call your attention 10 most extraordinary
feslure OF this The defendant put this witness on
the stand and although he said that he had been 70
his brothers mines three times while they were IN full
operation, not question asked OF him IN relation 10
them In OF The letters. which is proved TO be IN
bis handwriting, he asks his aecomphce. Verastegul
"Te me the exact posillen Tor sluaonl Of my
botbers mines and their distance IRON Ro Verde and
Lagunllas He had been there three times previously
yet in 1851 he inquiries OF verasiegui where the mines
were, and how far from Rio Verde and Lagunillas
Now, why he wanted this information you an
abled TO Judge somewhat from his petition 10 Domingo
Chaves who the aicalde of Rio Verde His petition
is as follows;
Fourth seal, l. $. for the years 1880 and 1851. 70
To the First Constitutional Acalde OF this city
"I,J, Charles Gardiner, citizen OF the United States,
and temporarily IN this city, appear before you in the
most legal manner and say: that my brother, DR. George
A. Gardiner worked mines in the point Tor place. called
Lagunillas IN the Huaseca range OF mountains Sierra
de Ia Huassedo and known by the name OF 'Irinidad
Dolores, and San Jose !; he spent in them a large
capital which he had to abandon account of having
been expelled by virtue of the first article OF the decree of
the oath OF October 1896 which was issued by the gov
eminent OF this State. As is to be supposed, not only
the capital invested lost. but also the profits
which must have resulted thererom and now, in order
to make his rights prevail in our republic i is necessary
upon everything relative TO the sad mnes their work
ings, reducing establishment drag mills (%rssts mule
yards &c., &c; they depo5e ii they be relations OF
my brother; whether they be interested in this
claim either directly or Indirectly. and whether they be
agents directors Of the business and the said deposit
tons being taken return their original for the pur
poses which may suit my brother. | therefore request
you 10 order what ask because it is just.
NV rA o'' 81. CHARLES GARDINER.
"(RubrcC
He makes application for testimony TO support his in
terest in his broihel's claim You recoect that he
fled before that ne could say whether he in Rio
Verde the 10Th OF October, 1851 and that he did "no
remember Domingo Chayes at ALL" This paper pre-
scented to him. and be acknowledged the signature 70 be
his; but could not be positive about the handwriting Of
the body OF it. The following is the noble answer OF
this alcalde 10 the petition. And observe this order IS
written before any communication from our govern
men had reached the State of San Luis 1t is the spon
taneous act of an upright incofrupble Mexican OFF,
cial
9" Rio VERDE, October 10, 1851.
"What the petitioner asks cannot be done, because
what is contained his petition is not true, because ne
iher in the municipality OF Lagunias nor in all this de-
partment is there, has there been, any mines,
much less (has there been any OF the importance and
magnitude that is intended to be epresenled neither has
Mr. George Gardiner ever been known as miner IN
this jurisdiction but surgeon and doctor, in the
few days that he resided here The expulsion that he
alleges is also false.
. In consequence let this writing be returned 10 him
with the present decree, and warn him. too, in future to
have more respect for the judicial authority that exer-
else than 10 attempt TO surprise and make me ac-
DOMINGO CHAyES.
"[Seall "a rubric)
[" First Juziado of Rio verde.l
g Assistant Witness BIAS URlBE
sd rubric y
Now, this witness, John c. Gardiner, who did not
member anything about IL, when confronted with the
pal or has admit tina, ii is his act He did know Do
mngo Chaves, and did make this application to him for
evidence in this cause. Domingo Chaves honest
man and knowing that this fraud, refused 10
lend the fundamentally of the Mexican laws or the
sanction OF Judicial otee TO any such foul and neia-
nous purpose.
righteousness and labor in order TO show that this decree
OF Domingo Chaves is forgery. You have heard a
good deal said about the manner OF writing enth" and
that The date the decree the "tenth" but the
first OF October. Ii is said that this is inconss-
tency not to be got that the petition is dated the
10th of October, and the decree the ls OF the same
month"; John Charles Gardiner admitted that the sigma
ture his, but he not about the bandwri-
ting Of the body Of the petition There is no dispute
that the "tenth'' is the true date of the petition.
Whatever may be your opinion, gentlemen as Span
ish scholars or grammarians about the right way OF
writing "ienh.-wheher the o. must necessarily
be as long the "l," or whether il may be at the
tep or bouom-i conceive that TO be wholly inmate
rial question The petition is genuine and John Charles
Gardiner does not deny it. What motive had Domingo
Chaves, any else, 10 commit forgery in the
swers Ii you find in the futhest OF your
fancy reason for the forgery explain why was not
done in less buUgng manner. Why was not the an
swer decree put on separate piece of paper In
writing where IT written, Jast below the date and
signature Of The petition, on the same page the eye Of
before. When he was writing the decree his eyes
looking at the date enh" on the petition. There is
not over half an inch between the two dates do not
think il necessary TO trouble you about the discussion
which occupied about day in regard TO the word prime.
re-" We bad nearly all the Spanish scholars in The city
on the stand DR. Davis and Mr.. Partridge examined
and MIR. Meiere's learning almost exhausted in or
der show that the date OF the decree the Clint
and the "lenlh." Suppose il "hfst," would it
be OF the most palpabe sequus the world
TO say that the paper forgery, though written
Just at the bottom Of the peton' Evidence has been
Produced that there different modes OF writing the
date Of the month in Mexico. This paper, which Is a
genuine one, and part of the evidence in the cause,
shows that John Charles Gardiner was engaged in OBJ
tanins evidence for his brother ,be time he swore
he got the copy OF the mining title the Lagunila.
office. Although he swore he not interested in
his brothers claim, show by his letter that be
Mr. Corcoan, you will recolect testified that the
cused had given bis brother John Charles letter OF credit
TO the amount OF $40 o00 and that the accused had de-
posted with him $3.50 the proceeds OF the sale OF
fourth OF the claim. What matter does ii make how
much he apenti TWAS leerof credit TO him, granted
of the proceeds OF the claim and shows that he
interested in apecunIary way. You looked at him when
he was sworn, and heard his exposure when it came
out and one would have supposed that should have
heard no more OF him witness; that the moral feel
ngs OF the jury would not have been outraged by his
little than fortnight had pa sed, when be came
here sgain, at his instance, il would seem, to
remember what be could not remember the time these
letters were shown to HIM. On being placed the
stand second time he thought the handwriting OF the
letters was like that Of one jose Vincent Veras-
tegui, a nephew OF Manuel Veras,egui, a man never
heard of before, and actor IN this strange drama
This witness brought here, if there be no
limit 10 the impndepce of guilt, for the purpose of dis
credilng Colonel Thomas that OF high and ire
proacbable character, who bad every OF knowing