The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-05-21

guinillas on the 18th of July, 1914, and had re-.
ceived possession on the 81 Of September, in tho
same year. Ia the other mining title he made it
the 4th Of September.
Now, he would look at these MoTelia papers hrst
in regard to the external evidence which they
carried on the face Of them. of their truth. The
FIRST was dated on the 18th Of July, 1874, and the
last on the 18th of April, '845. These papers were
all signed by the defendant; two of them by him.
self and q number of other persons. One Of them
contained the regulations Of the mining company
at Curucupasco, and was dated November l9, l64l
This was Just four months after he said he took
possession of these large mining establishment in
Lagunillas. Thus, it would be perceived, (having
read the mining articles, that in lS44 the defendant
engaged in mining operations, in company
with other persons, in the State of Michoacan,
The signatures of two of the parties to these pa.
pers (the Halseys) were proved by the witness
Wright, and there no evidence to contradict
hun in that respect. There was. 1t true, some
controversy about the signatures of the defendant
to thesc letters and papere. II waa alleged that
bis nsme was written Jorge" (the Spanish
model and that there wac no middle letter. (A;)
and that at this period there could be poss ible
motive for altering or concealing his real name.
Hut how did the matter stand on the testimony
The witness Wright bad told them that he was
we'll acquainted with the writing of the deen dant,
and explained how he became acquainted with it,
(Mr. F. here read copious extracts from the evil
dence of Wright. These papers, then, proved
that be was at Morelia in ls45, ind if his memorial
were true, he had denounced his mines in Lagui-
nllas nine months before. But he had admitted
to the witness Wright that he was member Of
this Morelia company, and therefore wac in an
other place at the time he said he was working his
mines in La gunllas. Then DR.. Mackie was ex-
amned az to the handwriting, and what did he
testify' Mr.. F. here read from the evidence of
DR.. Mackie in regard to the handwriting of the
Morea papers, in which he gave as his opinion
that the signatures to these papers, with two or
three exceptions, were in the hand writing of the
defendant, but not the body Of the papers.l Now,
Dr.. Mackie said he had compared these papers
with others, and .. anvil.
Mr. BRApLEY If the witness said what Mr.. Fen
dali says he did, it is not evidence in the case, be-
cause he had no right to speak OF handwriting by
comparison. The court had expressly ruled so
over ard over again. ....s .J .-..# rs...
The CouRr. Certainly. $50
Nj. FESDALL- The question was, whether he
knew the defendants handwriting, and what were
the means of bis knowledge. He said be did, and
that these papers were in his hani writing
Mr.. BRADLEY. l asked DR.. Mackie a GU eetion
which be answered; and he afterwards said that if
he answered as he was reported he did not correct
ly understand my question, and wished to correct
himself, and according to his correction bis state
ment would not be evidence, and the court would
have ruled il out.
The CoUaT. Mr. Fendal has right TO saw
what he said, and you have the same right to say
how you understood it. ID,
Mr.. FRNpALL. He gave his opinion and the
defence sought to impair bis evidence by present
ing 10 him two other documents which he said he
thought were in the d,fendant's handwriting, but
he did not speak positively. These papers were
all written in Spanish, and the witness Wright
said be had him write in Spanish. The testi-
mony to the writing, therefore, was that of a
man who bad him write; and he bad also
stated the source from which be obtained these
papers; and that testimony was sustained TO a
certain extent by the testimony of DR.. Msckie.
What, then, was the evidence on the other side?
Ii these etters and papers were not in the defend
ants handwriting, nothing would be easier thar to
satisfy the jury that they not. And who had
he brought to prove III He bad brought two wit
nesses, Marriott and Pickett. And what was their
testimony? Observe that the first of these letters
was written in the year lS44, and Marriott never
knew the defendant until lS4a, and had no know.
ledge OF bis handwriting at that time One of
these papers was shown to him, and he said he did
not recognise it the defendants ha nd writing
at least not the handwriting of the defendant with
which he was acquainted. So that the Jury would
see that this witness not able to speak positive
ly. He agreed that evidence as to handwriting
was in many instances mere matter of opinion:
but there was a vast difference between decided
opinion and hesitating opnion-opinion of the
truth Of which perfectly certain
Wright was positive that he saw the defendant
write in 1884, and clear that these letters were
in bis handwriting; and Marriott as not &C quaint
ed with him until lS49, and not quite positive
that these papers were not in his handwriting
FRO CoNrf1urp1