The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-05-12

an examination The witness Is now INTERCEPTED as 10
he appearance OF the mining Title in that ofhce with
view 10 show tina, il is fraud With reference 10 that
he has said that hls mind quite made up bot
pretty nearly so--iha he satisfied from seeing the
papers sewed together with white thread that the thing
had moi beea ia existence more than three days We
have proven since that duly certified copy had been in
Washington for more than Twelve months before that
time The United States have opened the subject be.
cause they have undertaken in their examination in
chief prove that the defendant had mine FIRST by
The inspection OF the country by Captain Smith Barry;
and secondly, by the examination OF the record On
every principle, therefore, OF the rule 10 which have adj
yered, and every principle OF fair dealing 10 the
cused, they were from that moment bound to out
openly and show all that they had TO show the SUB
lect. They cannot give 10 the jury glimpse OF their
case and, alter the OF the defence has been pre-
scented, undertake 10 show more.
Our objection Is not made Tor the purpose oil keeping
out whatever testimony may be given on the stand by
AIR. Partridge We suppose he cannot say anything
than he has already said. We make the obleclon
now before drtl further from The true course II we
right in position do not see why they cannot
60 the subject OF the topography OF Llgunlas, be-
cause goes TO negative The existence OF inc mines as
described in the paper Their witness testified that
they had taken exact copy from The original paper de-
scrbing the mines, and, eomparison that copy is
found 10 be exactly what we have IN the copy OF The deed
which has been admitted In evidence. MIR. Partridge
took copy OF what he supposed 10 be the whole descfp
ZION of the mines. The words " Sierra de la Huaseca'
cur in The introductory part OF the mining tle and il
was natural enough that he did not observe them, be-
cause those words not necessary to the description
except show the general range of mountains in which
II
was introduced only the subject of the finding OF
mining title in the Office, but for The purpose OF demon
sratng, by his physical survey OF Lagunlas, that, in
point Of fact had there been fifty mining titles the Of
hce there were no mines in that district That ev
dence in chief, proper and competent TO meet The title
which they had notice we were about TO produce Capt
Barry has said that there rivers and mines OF
any kind there He has given description Of little hole
or fountain in the mountains where the women went TO
do their washing, and all the other things he there.
He went over the subject Of the topography OF the
| 1 q
cross examination. We produced Messrs. Slocum and
Abbott and they stated their reconnaissance OF the coun
\ try and what they had And the United
States to examine Barry Doubleday, and all their other
Witnesses in regard TO this subject II be competent
for them to into the present examination see no ea
itself the burden OF proof TO show that the defendant
falsely when he swore that he had these mines,
and title to he, possession and therefore everything
mines not only admissible in chief, but essential IN
chief II in that way alone tha, they could make
out their case They not entitled TO 60 far as
they did, and then, after seeing what the defendant
adduced to bring out the rest OF their evidence OF The
same character.
IThe learned counsel here quoted from the report Of
the testimony of Captain Barry and MIR. Partridge on
the subject, as given in their former examnalions.l
MIR. abbott not only offered TO show the commission
where the lille was, but also where the mines
and if the thing fraud, he certainly would not have
made the Offer and thus taken away the last and only
hope of the defendant in the mater. Dr. Gardner bad
been prohibited from going further into the Stale OF San
Luis Potos, and he was therefore reduced 10 the single
fact Of showing the existence OF the mines BY the ar
gumen, The other side The offer 10 show the MINES
was evidence of fraud and that offer had not been
made, tia, also would have been evidence OF fraud
The District Attorney. The gentleman professes in
difference 10 What testimony Mr. Partridge will give
this points but jealous is be for The enforcement OF
he rule of practice he enuncaes II, that he found u
necessary make animated speech for the purpose OF
shutting out this very unmporian and Immatsnal evil
dence.
Mr. Carlisle You have several times given US the
credit of suggestions which from your side
Mr. May objected that it rule OF practice, and
went on 10 show that rule founded in substan
a justice accused person. and not matter Of form
or convenience.
fro be CONTINUED