The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-07

psdsntiy & Sny thing lkAs 0onss toid ei1s. Ed
kasad the oqsas. yirs cafryinGss miaiss opera.
sza. He g. NO der mean. 81 knov when
e =. ~ s :as dsi'. 4. business Which s-aot in.
sSs a. f BaAp..r. Issskh.r words. {h.. -.
ikhing. be went Hlhing; and Wien ~ vent nis or
" own business, hebid not stsead to my thing
Else. -e
Mr.. MAY. don't think the court has cot The
ground o. Which the question i prop0nndsd i.
about handwriting, that i man writes me 4 Iet
ter and act upon It, cen testify 10 H. Doea not
the act of the curats, in consulting the gentleman
A. lawyer in this letter, show that the curate re-
cognises the letter as that of Gomez?
Alter Heightened argument. the court dec;d.d
az follows: E E[7,S- + =.
The CouRr. The witness stated that he knew
Santiago Gomez. of Guadalcasar. in ls48, but has
not seen him since. He (Gomez) then lived in
Guadalcaxar, whom the witness believes vas rna ,.
ried, as he had a family. He was one of the
weaithiest men of that place. He ga his hand
writing at the house ofthe curate of Guadalcaxar
in eters. about divisions oftheir mines in the
year. The United States offer by this witness to
prove that the signature Of Santiago Gomez "a the
aforesaid deposition 10 not the handwriting Of San
tiago Gomez, of Qua dalcazar.
The Court then say that the evidence of this Wit
ness cannot be received on the knowledge he has
disclosed. He knows nothing of the hand v riting
of Gomez personally. He was shown some ietterSs
which the curate said we're written by Gomez of
Guadalcasar. This is hearsay. Private letters
written to witness BY party, and replied to. or
other wise acted upon, may be ground for testi-
flying Of handwriting. But here no correspond-
ence has taken place between Gomez and the wit
ness, and there were no means of knowledge
recognised by law.
The evidence was therefore overruled,
Mr.. MAY. Ask him to look at that deposition
and say whether he finds the name Of Raphael
Mendez there, and If he is acquainted with the
signature!
Ans He is not acquainted with it.
CUES. Ask him il, while he was secretary Of
signed by him?
Ans. He says Communications have been receiv.
% there signed BY Raphael Mendez, in the period
during which he was secretary of that prefecture;
but he cannot testify respecting the authenticity
or non authenticity Of the signature of Mendez.
He does not consider himself possessed of sufficient
knowledge to speak as to this signature.
CUES. Ask him If the formalities of the Mexican
law have been complied with in this deposit;oni
Mr.. BRADLEY. do not know that that question
is material, because these depositions we're taken
according to the form prescribed by the Mexican
board of commissioners.
After considerable discussion the court decided
| as folows
The CouRr. The United States propose to ask
the witness if the mode of taking dispositions OBJ
served in Mexico was adhered to in the depositions
| filed with the mining papers of the defendant.
This was objected to by the def endant's COUNSEL
and after argument the court say:
The evidence offered does not tend to establish
any part of this issue. Regulations we're prescribed
by the board Of Mexican commissioners The
Mexican formalities referred to were not regarded
BY the board necessary, for they received these
dispositions without regard to these forms. How
then can the want of acknowledgements want Of
form-be regarded as establishing any thing?
matter OF substance had been relied upon it woulc
or might have been different thing. The depo
sions were taken no doubt by one party or agent
under instructions, and be would, il he was Judi.
cio1s, avoid every thing unnecessary.
The court then rose.