The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-01

the object in offering it.
Mr.. CARLISLE said they did not object to his
stating his object in Offering the paper but ne 90
jected to his stating any facts which it contained
as that there was no mine in Laguiniilas, &c.
Mr.. MAY conceived it to be his duty to state the
precise points Of difference between this and the
other pa err. This paper purported to be stats
teal account of Laguinillas, rendered in 1851 the
original of which seen in the oftlce OF the de-
partment ty Mr. Partridge, and it was offered for
the purpose of showing that there were no mines
| in that district. The other was relation Of the
existence of mines in that country in the year
lS45, when defendant alleged he was working his
| mines there.
Mr. BRADLEY objected to the paper. that it did
not purport to be an official report but was simply
a memorial of some one. II did, however, speak
OF mine-a gold one-in Laguinillas, as he should
hereafter show.
The CouRr said one of the papers covered more
ground than the other; but in other respects the
| papers were exactly alike.
| After further remarks by the counsel
Mr.. Partridge was again called to the stand.
Mr.. MAY, Showing paper marked Ono. H. y
will ask you to look at that paper, containing
| list of names. Have you seen it?
-4ns. Yes.
Cues. w no is it signed by!
| Ans. 1t ia signed by Nicholas Barragan.
! Cues. Do you know who he was?
| Ans. He was collector of taxes Ia the depart
| ment of Rio Verde
CUES. Acting as such?
Ans. He was.
|
Ans. / did.
Mr.. BRADLEY. You say you saw him acting az
collector. How was he acting?
Ans. saw him signing papers in his office.
| The CoURr In what town was it?
Ans. In the town of Rio Verde.
| . Mr. May This red book has been already
proved to be the book of mining accounts presente
| by Gardiner to the commissioners who adjudicated
his claim. This (referring to another bOok) is the
| translation of the book. We offer much of the
original and the translation shows the spot in
| which the mine ia located, the name of the man
on whose land the mine ia located, and the name
of the owner of the hacienda there (He then read
several items found on page of the account
| book.) We now offer to show to the jury com.
plete, comprehensive list of every taxpayer and
every land.holder who has existed or has been
known to exist at any time in the municipality OF
Lagunillas from the 9Th of January, 1912. down
to the date Of it. The name of every one of them
ia set out with description of his property. and
We offer it to show that there is an absence from
this list of either of the names (above referred toy
in the account book This list is certified to in the
most official manner.
Mr. Partridge translated the heading of the
paper, showing what it purported to be, and also
the certificates attached to it.
Messrs MAY and FENDALL addressed the court
| in support of the admissibity Of the testimony
and Messrs. BRADLEY and CARLISLE to the con-
trary.
The CoURr (nfter stating the titles to the pa
pers) said: 1t is admitted that this ia list of
Taxpayers taken from the lists file, they
varied from year 10 year, IL De 30, tncn IL ID not
an exempli6cation of any paperor record in Mexi-
CO; and this fact ia of itself fatal to the offer Com
piations cannot be received, for the most obvious
reasons. The impossbity of detecting any fraud
which the officer preparing it might practice
makes this species of paper inadmissible. But if
it be considered copy, and not compilation, the
Court remar ks that papers which cannot be remov-
ed-records which public interest and policy
quire should remain in one spot-may be received
in evidence, if "competent," by an exempfcation
properly certified. The paper must be certified by
the proper officer to be true copy of the one
naming on file. Ia this 30? think not. The
heading of the paper, it s said ia part of the
tfcate. No; it is part of the paper to be certi-
fed TO. have serious doubts, too, whether sub
tax-gatherer-in our country, at least, very
subordinate ofhcer-is such foreign functionary
is qualified to certify to copy of paper in his
office, 80 as to make the exempliication of it ad-
missible in the United States, unless followed by
certificates of higher and more responsible officials
Of who he ia, and what his authority is. This,
however, it Is unnecessary to pursue further.
The paper must be rejected.
Mfr. Partridge recalled by the United States.
Cues. Did you when at Laguinillas inquire for
any one of the name Of Manuel Saldierna?
Ans l did.
CUES. Did you find any person by that name?
Cues Did you inquire for person named Jose
Jaurequi?
Aus. did.
CUES Did you find any such person?
dns. l found none.
Qu,s Did you find any mines there belonging
to either of them?
Ans. / did not
The CoURT ruled the question and answer "a not
in evidence.
CUES. Will you say whether you went into the
office of the clerk at Rio Verde?
Ans. did every day while there, except one,
vhich was a feast day,
Cues. Did you search there for records of mines?
Ans. did, and found none. The Office was the
projects Office.
CUES. Who the Prefect?
Ans Francisco Fernandez. visited the Office
often, looked for records of mines, and fou nd nome
CUES Did you see him write his name?
Ans did, had almost daily intercourse with
nlm was at the ofhce as said, every day but
one saw him write his name when he signed
the papers which come to the commission and /
saw him write it when he was not signing papers
for us; when be signed other papers on official bu
sines
Cues. From your knowledge of the handwriting
of Don Julian de los Reyes, Luis Guzman and
Francisco Fernandez, l will ask you to say are
these signatures on this paper (the mining title
and accompanying depositions) genuine or forged?
Mr.. BRADLEY objected to the inquiry.
The Court. When did you see all this!
Witness. When was there last year. | never
cav them before. | Reyes, Guzman, and
sign his name to the papers which came to the
Gutierrez was secretary.to the pre-
feet.
MIR. MAY. We offer to prove by this witness that
all these signatures ON this paper are forged.
MIR. BRADLEY objected, and stated his objections.
Messrs. MAY and FENDALL supported it.
Mr.. BRADLEY replied, and had not concluded
when the court adjourned.