Daily evening star. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1852-1854, 1853-03-14
CRIMINAL COURT.
THE GARDINER TRIAL,
MONDAY, MARCH l4.-THIRD DAY


jury were called over and answered to their
names A good deal If anxiety was mani
tested by those present to ascertain the rul
ing Of the Judge upon the law point in rela-
ton to DR.. Gardeners identity in swearing
the alleged perjury before Justice Myers,
which was argued on Saturday.
Mr.. Bradley wished to resume the argu-
ment, and cited authority in support of his
position from LIST Leech D. $685. He read
several voluminous extracts therefrom bear
iug upon the law point under argument, and
went on to say that the paper in question
could not be introduced before the Jury ex-
cept under the direction of the Court.
The District Attorney stated be had sent
for the journal Of the proceedings before the
Commissioners in relation to the papers it
was alleged signed by Dr. Gardiner.
The Hon. MIR. Evans was then called to
the stand, with view to show that such
paper was in existence.
The District Attorney-We can show, if
it be the wish of the Court, by the witness
On the stand, that such paper was before
the committee of the Senate.
The Court have no wi sh at all about
it. You have to choose your own course.
The District Attorney.-Very well, then,
We shall produce tie paper itself, as l have
sent for it.
Witness here withdrew.
This matter occasioned some delay in the
proceedings. On return of the messenger,
MIR. Evans was recalled, examined by the
District Attorney.-I was not President of
the Board of Commissioners-stric speak
ing there was no President. This paper
[produced] have no doub, was before the
it; but from its general appearance have
no hesitation in stating it was before the
Board. When the Board had nearly closed
its session, paper was presented. 1t bore
the 81 gnature Of DR.. Gardiner. This is the
paper here produced]. With this excep-
ton there was no other memorial 1t was
about the close of the session. 1t appears
to have been filed before
To Mr.. Bradley-It was after the claim
had teen adjudicated.
Direct Examination Resumed.- were
two papers produced before the Board.
DR. Gardiner was examined On the subject
of this Memorial, l think it was in the
spring of 1850 His counsel were Mr..
Curtis, of New York, ard Mr. Waddy Tbomp-
son, of S. C.. 1t is not usual to examine
claimants in such cases. We were in the
habit of admitting counsel for an hour or
SO In relation to points of difficulty, some
times they would explain and answered.
other times they would decline to answer
A question arose as to the rropriety of ad-
hitting DR.. Gardiner He was admitted.
and appeared alone without counsel. lie
had large number of paper before US, and
was INTERCEPTED good deal.
l Intercepted him in the shape of a cross
examination to ascertain if every state.
ment was correct. l examined him about
the memorial. | asked him about the wit
nesses, and variety of questions. He an
swered all the questions. l interogated
him quite closely as to his having the means
OF making SO large an investment. The
practice of the Board in relation to receiv-
ing memorials, was first to examine them
to see if they conformed to the forms which
the ruled prescribed. The next was to ex.