The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-29
FoRTIETH DAY.-Wedne.dav, April 81,

other times, before the abstract of the mining ii
tie was filed with accompanying documents be
fore the Mexican commission and with them the
deposition of j. Charles Gardiner, filed in Janua
ry, 1885,
After lengthy discussion respecting the ad-
instability OF the papers. the court made the fol.
| lowing decision
The CoURr. 1t is proposed to give in evidence
various papers filed in the winter of ls49- so, or
other times before the abstract of the mining title
vas filed, with the accompanying documents, be-
| lore the Mexican commission, and with them O
deposition OF J. Charles Gardiner, filed in Janua
ry, 1880 This testimony ia objected to on the par
of the United States The offer Of these papers is
made as part of the geste What are res
gestG depends partly on their being simultaneous
or nearly 30, with the principal act, and partly on
| the nature of the subject matter in relation to
which the things proposed to be proved were done
| The defendant is charged with false swearing in
support OF claim against the United States,
which is the offence designated by law. Evidence
| has been given OF the memorial and dispositions
accompanying it, and the abstract of the mining
title, and the dispositions filed whit These pieces
of evidence we're severay properly admitted on
very plain principles 1t is now proposed to ex
bbt to the jury papers filed intermediately by the
defendant with the commission, and they are urg
ed upon the court as part OF the res seste. They
| do not SO appear to the court; and as this ia The
only ground Upon which they offered, or rs it
seems could be received, they must be rejected.
The court then took a recess.
On reassemblingN
baptisma certificate declaration of intention let
ter of security, diligence ticket, and the other
papers identified by John Charles Gardiner during
his examination on previous days.
Alter the question OF their admiesibllity had
been debated at some length the court made the
following decisDnI
The CoURT Various papers have been offered
In evidence. The first is the certificate of baptism,
which obtained of the curate in Havana
charged with baptissnal registers in 1914 The OBJ
lect of the most formal certificate is to show the
same thing, and it can show no more. am of
opinion that this paper ia evidence, but evidence
only OF the fact of baptism such day of the
person baptized.
2. The declar alton of intention and letter of Sc
curity offered ancient papers, thirty years
old, and as the declaration of the defendants an
cestor as matter of pedigree to chow his (the
defendants) age. Papers thirty years old and
more require proof, the ground that it is
generally impossible to prove such papers. Here
The handwriting of George A. Gardiner, err, is
proved in his signature 10 the paper; and it is
original paper, produced by member of his fam
lily. If, however, admissible ancient it only
be far receivable in relation its contents. 1t
is offered for the purpose OF showing the age of the
defendant, and in this aspect cannot be received
Can II be admitted as the declaration of the do
fendanps ancestor the principle of the law in
relation TO pedigree? observe that it is the deca-
ration of intention that is not signed by the de-
iendants father, and this is the paper which states
the defendants name, age &c. The protection,
which does name his family, is not signed by him,
and s not evidence.
Mr.. CARLISLE. If we adduce the law of 1891
AID show that it requires such report TO be made
by foreigner arriving at Havana, as preliminary
to bis getting letter of security, and that the in
terval between them is just like that between the
declaration OF intention of foreigner to become
a citizen of this country and bis naturalization,
would not the objection of your honor be removed?
The CoURT. think not. ] take it for granted
the law Ia so from what have seen in other cases,
but do not know tnat officially If received as
the declaration, 1t must appear to be the act of the
defendant himsef IF the paper which ia signed
contained any enumeration of his family, would
have been of opinion that it might have been re
ceived; or if they had been dated the same day.
have looked at them and perceive that there 10 an
interval OF more than six months between the two
papers. In this country, as the law now stands,
there would be an interval of two years between
the declaration ofintention and the naturalization.
They could not be regarded act, but two
different and separate acts, as / think these are
Mr.. CARLISLE If we show that party applying
for paper, such as the first one, required by
law to made declarations like those in that paper,
giving the particulars in regard to his origin and
circumstances, would not that, taken together with
the aide of the paper, make a declaration Of the
deceased, George A. Gardiner, touching these cir
cumetapces'
The CoUpT. 1t appears to me, as the point is
presented, that it is not evidence. The diligence
pager and passport and the other pa pers may be
and have been used by the witness to refresh his
memory, and he may further say that be knows
by these papers and letters that he at given
places at certain times, and give them the rea
sons for recoectlng the facts which he details of
| having visited this town and that one, and when;
end, if the jury choose, they may look at the dates
and postInarks and direction only and not to the
| contents. That 10 the only legitimate purpose for
/ which they can be used. witness may always
give reason for the statement OF fact if he has
any particular reason, and it always makes bet
ter impression on the jury. He may say, re-
member thing which took place ten years ago
why? Everybody would be surprised at it. He
might say that he recollected it very WELL because
bis father died or bis oster married at that time.
| A reason of that kind would induce every body to
believe what he said to be true It is the constant
practice to AJAX such questions. As have said, 80
lar these papers may be used, and indeed have
| been used, by the witness. If the defence choose
to present the matter in relation to the Spanish
| law-that it ia a necessary part 1T the duty OF a
foreigner landing at Havana to make communi-
cation of these facts to the proper oficers-the
court will hear il.
| Mr.. CARLISLE. We offer in evidence copy OF
the decision of the Board of Mexican Commits
sioners, made on the 18th OF March, 1850, as set
| ting forth the grounds OF the award 10 George
| Gardiner. The copy Of that decision which we
offer has been identified by the late secretary Of
| the board as one made by person in its employ,
| and will be considered, suppose, just as though
il were read from the book itself. The question
is whether it is competent either from the book OF
'0Epy r.. MAY. Certainly.
MIR. CARLISLE. We suppose that 1t Is part OF
the official act of the Board of Commissioners in
awarding this claim to be we'll foun ded under the
treaty. We think we ought to be allowed to in
troduce it to show the jury on what grounds the
board acted. III
Mr.. MAY The fact that the commissioners de-
cided in favor of this claim is already before th'
Jury Now, what grounds tneY hsa !or I?a' ae
cison, or what they said thought about 1t, can
no more be given in evidence than the grounds Of
the opinions OF any witness on the stand. II mas
nothing in the world to do with the case
The CoURr. do not think it is evidence II OBJ
jected to-
Mr. MAY. l wish the defence would now Civ
Us explanation with reference TO the witness II
New York who was 80 greatly intinidated IRON
coming on hers.
MIR. CARLISLE. If you will wait till TO- morrow
we may probably bring him in II you desire 1t
] will explain at length; but it cannot be done in
moment. There aspects OF the case winch
feel disposed to let pass into oblivion out II com
mence must tell the whole story,
Mr.. MAY. You must tell It On some evidence
, hid YOU get your witness hcre'
Mr.. CARLISLE we uiu.
Mr.. BRADLEY. There was packet sent throug
| me mail which has not vet reached US. III we &c