The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-05-08
The Gardiner Trial.
CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF coLUM.
BiA.
Reported for the Union.l
FoRrY -FouRrH --WEDNrspAY, MAYA. 1883

Al The suggestion oil the Court, the jury were dismissed
until O'Clock, and, on meeting al tnat TIME, uhlil 10
morrow morning, the argument the question OF me
admissbity 10 evidence OF the letters OF John Charles
Gardiner 10 Manuel perastegul and DINERS ana o'nei
documents, not having been concluded,
The District Attorney resumed ms argument, III iui-
ther support Of the proposition tha IN gwen eases Tue
consirueion Of written papers the right oil the jury
and thar il was lie duy OF the court, unless
the evidence should be Objectionable on other grounds
10 let such papers 20 TO ihe luy he e'lea oarke Ev
in evidence came, he contended, directly within the
rule that "where the meaning IS 10 be judged OF by The
aid OF exiTnsc circumstances the construction usually
question OF fact Tor The jury" La White Us. Nichols,
which was case Of libel, Ga written documen) the SUI
preme Court OF the United States held that the jury vas
The proper tribunal 10 determine whether naes marked
The publication OF the libel, g Howard, 267, 292 And
as 10 the quo aiimo IN Dnsman Us. Wilkes. Ibis
turned on the motlve which induced Wilkes TO in
filct the pun,shmenls complained OF by Dinsman.
portion OF the testimony was in writing. The Supreme
Court said iha the question OF motive zone exclu-
svely for the jury, be decided by them upon the whole
testimony" az Howard 404 and cited arguendo;
ID, $780, 4oo) In the Queens case The judges held that
II was mol competent 10 show that the agent OF the pros
ecutor, not Called offered TO brbe witness, who also
not called. The question, the chief justice OBJ
served regarded the OF agent addressed TO per
son not examined as witness IN support OF me lnac,
nent, the proiered proof not apparently connecting itse
with any particular matter deposed by The witnesses VINO
had been examined in support OF The Indictment; and
leaving, therefore, those Witnesses Unaffected by the pro-
posed proof otherwise than by way OF inference and
conclusion. He added. that Notwithstanding the
opinion he bad delivered, he by means pre-
pared 10 say tha, in no CASE and under ccum
appearing at trial, might not be fit and proper for
Judge allow he proof Of ibis nature 10 be submitted 10
The consideration Of jury; hat The Inclination OF every
Judge admit, than exclude, the offered proof
Il Brod & Bing, 3o2. cit in Rose. CT. Ev., 5i)
On the head OF conspiracy the counsel referred TO two
decisions OF the Supreme Court one earlier and the other
later than Goodrgs case which he had cited yesterday
IF BODY be actually assembled for the purpose
OF eectiag by force reasonable purpose, all those who
perform any part however remote IRON the scene of &C
on, and who actually le3gGu the general consp
racy, 10 be considered traitors" (Er parle Boil
man and Swarlwoui; Cfa., l26
In The Case OF Tie American Fur Company Us. United
States, e PeieTs 35S, 1854 The Supreme court, after
affirming the OF GooUing, lin y Wheat say, "Tbe
opinion Of the (distrc court III The present case is not
less corIect whether DAVIS considered by the jury
having acted IN conjunction with Wallace or strictly
his agent for hold The law 10 be that where two
mole persons associated together Tor the e
gal purpose any act declaration OF one OF the parties
in reference to Tue common object and forming part OF
the res gesq may be gwen IN evidence against the 9th
eIs"
As 10 the evidence Of the e1seaee of conspiracy 1t
may be cpumrtantiai, e. Slaike Ev., 32i Cope's
case; l. Strange. l4i) may be collected from coiIale-
raj circumstances. Cease Of The Cock-ane Ghost, l. w.
B 1927 Tie act OF one colspaor IS evidence against
the Ies Il Starkie Ev 325 stones case East p c., OF
Watsoh's case 2 Siarkre ~ p C 40 The privIly OF
The accused may be established without first proving the
existence OF he conspiracy, e. Staike Ey,, $50 1927
Hardy's case 3 Sarkle Nv, BPS Home TookeS case,
See The principle as stated by Roscoe Grim Ev., p. 81.
Gam Am ed, 1922 and The cases cited by him.
Words used by man are not evidence against an
other, unless they proved 10 be engaged in common
enterprise hat IN such they evidence, though
not conclusive (EbeTles case, 8 ScrgL and Rawle 0
An act charged 10 be by conspiTalor in
pursuance the conspiracy, 10 be considered the
act OF all lColhns's case, g. Sergt and Rawie, 22o.)
Alter evidence Of a fraudulent conspiracy The declara-
tons any Of The parties 10 II may be proved, (W-
bur Us. Strickland, /. Rswle, 45o) combination be-
tween the father and SOL 10 deiFaad HE creditors OF the
father having been proved, held that il COM
pelenl for the creditors 10 give IN evidence declarations
by the father, IN the absence Of the son, that the bond
had been given for The sole purpose OF keeping of credit
and al 4 " " "a
Reltenbach, / Rawle, 800
The least degree OF concert COLLISION between
parties m gal transaction makes the act of one the
act OF all.' (Rogers Us Hall, Waus, 35l)
: p in Gibbs Us Needy, Watts 3O7. and the acts
and declaration OF one may be given in evidence to
In an action IN the in the of conspiracy
against three for obtaining goods upon credit by false
and fraudulent evidence that such repre-
sentalions made ty one alone IN pursuance OF
previous agreement aud coGedetacy 10 that effect will
tile other two, but in Their absence, will sustain decla
ration charging them all with having made the represent
alions ULvImore U.s. HeTschel, Pick 33)
To make the actions and declarations OF conspiralor
in iurlberance Of the common object admissible IN ev
dence sufficient that The conspiracy has been proved
BY competent witness The court would not decide on
bis crediblty. Grow Rinhhields case, 10 Pick, i97
Where community Of design is established the acts OF
the parties, and Their declarations al the time OF prese
ing those acts evidence against each other (Cot Us
Ewes, u Conn ,243)
Upos the ral OF an indictment againt NJ for passing
counterfeit bank notes, The prisoner appears clearly ic
have been conederaed with one l.. in passing counter
felt notes, and present when l.. passed such notes
the passed by L. produced IN evidence agans
the prisoner; held, they are evidence" (Martns case
Leigh, 745
The rule OF law is that where there is a community oil
interest and design the declarations of one OF the pare,
is evidence against the rest and the rule is confined
OF civil contract (Snyder Lsirsmbose Bfeese 26s
see Rose CT Ev., IS. chung Stones case, T. f. C., 80
T. X, 527 ;25 How ST Tr, 1911, s. C. Hsrdy's case
~ How. ST. II asa AS; Rusc. CT. Ey, SIS. citing
Hunts case, u. and Aid, 500; Frosrs case, c. and
p, l29 xxi h. c. l. r. 20; Russ CT by Grea., 700
Stark Ev,, 233; % cd. Cope's case Str la Parson,
case, w. 81, 800; Lees case, McNsl., Ev, 634
2e7; xxxv. T.. L., 397; 1 Il. L. C., S97 Mosher's
case, Wheel G. C., 2l6 Nather's case, Wend 229
Clarks case, Q Mass, ~
II Is objected tba in order 10 make the acts declaa-
hons oil c0nspfaor evidence against his associate
they must be accompanying and not subsequent dec
1aTstons and that thls indictment Ter false swearing
The rule, were II stated correctly, would be applicable
only 10 the declarations substantive evidence
against the accused II has nothing do with them as
dscredting the 1SS But the rule stated by the de-
PENDANTS counsel narrowly tits conceded Thai
difference 10 the admlssbilly OF such act deca.
ration OF a consplratoT, whether not he be indicted,
the indictment or trial be Tor conspiracy. The in
dicment may be for any criminal offence whaeyer II
you show a conspiracy between the accused add another
person connected with the subject OF the charge, the
declaration OF that other person, m iurlherance OF the
conspiracy evidence against TIE accused In this
the statutory tence OF false swearing charged and,
10 show the scaf, evidence OF the orgery OF certain doc
pmen,s pest ned months after the date OF the false
oath, and in support OF IT, has been given. To repe this
evidence, The Defendant hss put the stand witness
whom MS own testimony, together with other evidence
IN 'he cause exhibits ctnsgi with the defendant
~ Haou on me government The immediate result Of