The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-03-29

..... .s . ..1...... -. -. . - ....
viii Il a.. q - s,.b r,,est;o., ,,n,v Il. go ~.
;.,, :; ~ tp,ts - fsis;., af ~, = i. - sI =,
= s' Ts ,os - ~, - s.
a;.a.s e tls ..,oo - ~ ,h "a 8
ss =; th ,e.no,s.l ia. ~ sssssrt ~ Nc c..nvict
II - The n 81 81, iiffare,,ce
1919 AZ. $500. &. to~.s.si =, ,,ss1 .
r. . = rrasS tb.t 81 ia tifne these napera were
ohtained 10 ncctcr fsardil,er from Mexico Thai
co,trv -. ~ Z - "a f ravolution renlerinor S
sraa ia Car Nm Ia % there: that he wrote 81 :
s;.,i = nh verde IL obtain these ners FIR b;rn
which that friend did, and sent them Ia him a
Nonterev where thew came 10 him .thrarrh ~ !
hnnds az the Governor Of New Leon II Il shonId
anpear that this friend was deceived throngh nv
other cause instead OF TRANSMITTING the genn;ne
papers, sent forged ones to Doctor Gard;ner that
was q distinct and separate matter. havinr M
connexion with the issue now before the court.
He regarded this Question 90 70 tho a,n;s;h;,;.
gsther within the iurisdiction of the conr7. ND
cited Cd Russell on Crimes. 772-that mn ev,aenca
can be admitted which does mt tend ~ nrya ~
disproye the issne ioined In cr;,n;nai .ases az.
rule ia more strict. that the evaenca ns. he co.,.
fined to the noint "a iasue. - 1es " so 'i
These forged papers-if thew were .o-wore NO,
part of the transaction unon wbi,h an ;ss's ,,a y
been joined before the jury.
He insisted more earnestly upon the enforcement
prejudice Of The defendant not cnnfned to ~ am
now nendino because Dr Gard;nsr mo- III - 90
other man had been made victim Of the mos, s.,
traordinarv circumstances ne had hoo, m ade nj
onlv 10 auffer ali the nreindce of tho nnhl;c n;nd
q rainat him created hv tbo,a cla;nants ~ -, 40
manra had heen reiec,ed Nv th hna - h,,t -,
thoae whoae claims had heen allowed and Who
sought to divert attention from their own claims.
bv 3hrow;n,. od;nyn ,,non n C,.a;,n.,, IT,;
was not alI,h;s caae had heen made The ar,nnds
work of anneals tn the nonnlar nre;ndics hv tho
whole Democratic nress far the nnrnnae IF h1ea b
ing down a Wing administrator, and of defeatnp
a Whie candidate for the Presidencv. the enemies
of Governor Corwin had made this case the maa ma
to bIack en- that oenteman,s fair fame and The tyo
Governmental of Mexico and of the United States
had been united to hunt down and onnress this do
fendant. In consideration of these circumstances.
he earnestly appealed to the court to exercise it's
sound discretion by refusing to admit this evidence
having no relation to the issue now pending to 60
before the jury to the injury AMI peril Of The de-
PENDANT.
Mr.PERRY said his business en- gagements at home
rendered it necessary he should return at once He
regretted it, but it was unavoidable If he could
return before the case was concluded be would do
So but he did not think it likely. He bid the court
the Jury, and the counsel farewell
Mr.. MAY said it was stated distinctly the other
day by the prosecution when they offered this and
the other papers connected with the mining title in
evidence, that they intended to offer afterwards
evidence to prove they were forgeries and that the
object was to prove the scie,ter-the guilty know.
ledge of the accused of the sty of the oath he had
taken. He thought that the counsel on the other
side having made no objection then, the time for
objection had passed by.
There could be no objection to this evidence.
Whatever objection to it was heretofore entertained
by courts, had long since been renewed; and there
was no principle better established than that the
prosecution may offer in evidence where the scien
ter must be proved, other transactions to show the
quo amino with which the offence was committed
This prosecution was to all practical intents and
purposes prosecution of an offence of perjury
though technically it was known of false
swearing To sustain it the Government must
establish three distinct points:
lst. That the accused took the oath
I'd. That the oath was false one; and
Sd. That he knew it to be false.
The two first had been proved-subiect however
to be explained modified, or removed, by the evi
dence for the defence; but for the present they
stood established; they the corpus delict
1t was still necessary for the United States to show
the quo amino with which the act was done
any circumstances tending to show what his in
tenton was at the time. Any thing from which
the jury may infer that he knew this oath to be
false one is proper evidence to go before them for
what it may be worth. The accused brings to the
Board of Commissioners the very evidence required
to sustain the claim sworn to by him; evidence
necessary and important to his claim; evidence on
which the award was made; and what more con
and his knowledge of the fasity of, that OATH than
evidence that the papers filed by him in support of
it are forged?
case
me defendant, on former occasion, when ask
ing Tor continuance OF this CASE hled an affidavit
before the court In which ne stated that he was
advised that evidence OF the forging OF these papers
might be offered in the trial by the prosecution;
that continuance was necessary to enable him to
obtain evidence from Mexico to prove their genu
ineness. This was the authority of the counsel on
the other side that this evidence might be admit,
ted.
Mr.. CARLISLE said he had ALWAYS entertained
the opinion that the evidence could not be admit
Mr.. NAV said. to ask the co,rt now 70 decide
the Testimony inadmissible. would he to Mace Tho
court in rather an awkward position: for the Court
in grantiug the continuance to allow time to nh
ta;5 ev;de6ce tn meet ths verv ou;da,a 49,, w.
rossd csrta;nIn concadad No .,;danan e ~" p' ~