The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-05-11

| anu ou Icdu All the DINERS are Qdled on ana
after sth May 1851 and excluded. except the date Of L.
i No 9, as evidence that the witness was at San Luis
folosi On me sh and 10th OF November 1851 The date
OF L. L. NO. III. dated 18Th November, 1861, and the
passage 10 It, Tell me the position Of my brother
mines and the passage in the letter OF the 9Th May,
1851, l.. 4 No 4, "my brother and |" have bought a
admitted.
Il IS unnecessary to say how far this evidence ought to
be excluded as not rebutting
Mr. May lpeceive that the court in lis opinion does
not consider the question with reference the interest
and bias OF the witness.
The Court Il has admitted of the letters in ref
| Mr. May did not enlarge upon that point, because
The court lad SAID in previous decision, that "the bias
tents OF these letters. We can show that
The Court The letters are not substantive evidence
OF anything against the defendant at all They pure
ly the declarstions of thirdIay, totally unconnected
with hs subject Of the conspiracy. Il there conspi-
racy.
The District Attorney understood the court in the
opening OF ITS opinion, to say that the letters, with the
exception OF NO o, were neither admitted nor denied.
| No. 5 was admitted.
The Court. The COURTS OF opinion that it could not
be evidence of anything in itself II is dated the 9th of
November and IT you think The date is MATERIAL you may
use it. a H
The District Attorney The court expressed some
doubt as to whether it was admitted denied II the
court think il denied, il will allow portion be
admitted in evidence The jury may infer from that
the witness knew there was no mining title at Lagunil-
las on the 10Th of November
The Court. Ii must be something direct than a
matter OF inference You may contradict witness as to
verbal statements; you may ask him " Did you say SO
and sop you can prove that he did say SO and so, but
not whether he said something else
Mr. May Is not the inference in that case for the
| jury
The Court 1t is, if the court lei it 60 the jury.
| Mr.. May. The court will observe that the mining title
which brought here proved by the witness him
self Now, understand that the court allows give
in evidence the date of the letters, 10 show that the
ness was not at the place he said he the 10th of
November The court will notice. that In another letter
ha N lnson hav,n thar
ing tile IN Lagunias prepared. lest the agent OF the
government go there 10 look for il. l think that it
would be proper for the jury TO consider what he meant
! by that statement whether he did not mean
que, that there was no mining title there, and that he
knew there was none, Notwithstanding he brings in
10 the court, which he says he got there.
The Court. have thought of all that. The letter is
not evidence in that point of view at ALL 1t is direct
| substantive evidence against the defendant.
Mr.. May. We do not offer il evidence against
George, but evidence against his broher and repu
dale the very le gotten up under these circumstances
The witness in his letter told his to put il
IN that place he has brought the mining title here. and
we now wish TO repudlae that tlle and turn it out OF
court
by any kind oil evidence because supp0ses it will
establish the fact yon must prove it according to law
The District Attorney. We have not conended at
The Court You have, nearly as broad as that
The District Attorney. The point is this: There
certain matters OF fact involved, which the court said
proper tor the consideration OF the Jury Is not the
declaration in the letter OF the 10th OF November such
that ii would be competent for the Jury infer from
II that the writer OF the letter made assertion, in sub
stance, that there mining title at the acades Of
hce in Lsgunlllas the 10th of November, 1851 II they
think So is not that contradiction OF his statement on
The stand that he got the mining tile there The 10th Of
November
The Court 1t canno, operate otherwise than subsan-
lively, II II operate al all.
Mr. Bradley. We say there is nothing OF the kind in
the letters.
M May desire TO call the attention of the court TO
another question When the witness on the stand
askeahim very distinctly and in precise TERMS with
view to contradict him, whether he had not hand in
suggesting the fabrication OF the mining title
The Court remember the very words OF the ques-
ton.
MIR May. Now, on the principle OF the courts decs.
ion, would aquire whether cannot show by the ad-
missions OF the witness that he did suggest the fabrca
ton oil that title 10 contradict him
The Court. II you can prove IT out OF the letters; but
you cannot prove another ibng and infer from that that
he did fabfcae the mining lite You must contradict him
Mr. May Cannot the evidence 20 for what it may
avail before the jury, II the court sees that IL tends 10
contradiction OF The wltnessi
ly--" did you say this or tnati" ii he did you can
prove IT; II he did not, bat said something else which
you think means that, you cannot contradict him
Mr.. May. The court will not allow TO put the
language OF the writing TO him cauno ask the witness
whether he said so and so 10 wnungl II he denies the
writing can then take the letter and first having proved
1t, show that he did say and So must first ask him
verbally the facts OF The question which 90 TO the sub
stance and meaning OF the letter; and the jury must then
be allowed 10 hear the letter read, that part OF it, to
II II be not a contradiction.
The Court. That Just means what anybody pleases to
think. | have looked in vain lor any decision about
writings. One remark oil the Judge IN the Qaeens case
squu's towards II, but cannot find any decision the
subject IL would be the most dangerous thing IN the
world TO allow you 10 prove thing and TO say that it
meant another A man is responsible Tor his own words
aud not your construction oil them.
Mr.. May. L is the right Of the jury TO hnj out what
man means
The Court so far as am concerned the law win be
strictly enforced will not 20 for any departure from the
rules OF evidence any u this than in the
monesi in the world
Mr. May then exhibited 10 the jury and explained the
dates and portions OF the letters which, under The decis
ION of the court, bad been admitted ia evidence.
Captain Maddox recalled
Mr. May. THE defendant and his brother sitting at
The bar Look al the two brothers, and say which of
them IL was that you saw al Mazalan
Ans The accused is the which saw.
Mr.. Bradley The witness has been examined in chief
as 10 the person he al that place. and would in
qaire whether we are now to go the same testi
mony
The Court As far as this testimony is concerned,
Captain Maddox has stated II as strongly he could
bat still you have given evidence which tends 10 show
that II was the other brother which be and they
therefore havea right 10 meet IT,
Mr. Bradley. Captain Maddox was examined in chef
as TO whether he had met Dr. Gardiner, and whether
he recognised bun; and is II competent now Tor the Uni-
ted States TO recall the Witness and the same
thing that they did before !
The Court He does not prove the same thing The
question Is asked him under different circumstances and
~ different manner. Cumulative evidence, agree,
generally - not rec lng evidence
Mr. CARLISLE This i trying this everlasting case twice
ove they are to call every OF The witnesses who
will be told, Nov you have heard every part OF the
dence the part of The defence. and that they say
trs.a Iahp A.wi.