The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-05-12
Mr.. Carlisle and he wilnss.

The copy OF the mining uilo which "as
a you and the original in the alcalde's once . 9;
Ans ! have a strong impression that the Wolus ~ |
ezra dc la Huasisca" not 10 the mining ule show
al i.sgunias. but cannot swear posi''eN 70 'n'
Mr. Carlisle stated that the extract made by lhe VII,
ness was from the original petition OF Dr. Gardner:
MIR. May. Did you examine Inc paper WIN VIC" "
getting the descriptive paTls
Ans Yes, slr 1 exaninedh three several umes.
Cues | understand you TO say mar ,he iiuasiesa
rany. M mountains was mentioned IN the original
Ans That is my impression, but am not willing 10
swear that il was mentioned in the original. am
no, 40 certain OF that as | am OF other things
Cues Describe the appearance OF that original pa
peMr Bradley. Mr. Partridge has already been exam
med ON this subject in the examination IN CHIEF. use
the words examination in CHIEF as OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
from rebuttng proof
Mr. NAV The court has decided over and over again
that witness may be recalled
The Court A witness can only be recalled for the
purpose Of explanation, The question now is whether
ills or is not iebu,tng proof9
Mr.. May understood the court 10 say that witness
might be recalled II anything had been omitted in his ex
animation.
called at any time before that side Of the question was
closed For instance When your witnesses were called
by the other side and the observation was made whether
they could recall your Witnesses at any time or not
replied that they could al any Tine before the prosecution
Mr. May. The principle now is one of practice going
to the order OF proof and the counsel the other side
object, the Introduction OF rebuttng proof, that II is
nor competent for TO examine The witness on those
OF examining him during The examination in chief.
The Count. That is unless il apply TO what they have
introduced.
Mr. May 1t being no part of our case to prove any
thing about the mining title, we carefully absained from
making single inquiry with respect toll We asked
Captain Barry whether, when he made his first visit TO
Lagunilas which month previous TO the arrival OF
the commissioners al that place, he had examined the
alcaldes office 10 whether there was mining title
there He replied that he had, and that there was no
mining title there Ii there was none found, there
mining title about which TO examine witnesses. The
will explore vain the report OF the trial TO find
where sing lie witness was asked anything about the
title We rested on Captain BarIys evidence, his answer
having settled the question Towards the close OF the
ting questions to him. brought TO his mind the consdea-
ton OF the existence OF the mining title in Lagnnlas. and
went on 10 nterrogaie him about 1t. The copy OF The
mining ne however, was not shown to the witness, nor
was be informed OF lis contents II twas not shown until
after evidence in chief had been closed In the pro-
gress OF their case they set up this new mining TILE
The only in reference 10 which we had offered es-
mony the al Rio Verde which was flied before
the board Of commissioners Mexican claims. and on
which the claim OF DR.. Gardiner allowed. We think
we successfully impeached tina, tle. In the very com
mencement offered 10 prove that it was forgery
Now, the counsel on the other side Sc! up another
mining tle, which they say was seen in Lagunlas by
witnesses Socum and Abbott That title was offered by
them, and by and when II presented by then,
and relied oil have right 10 recall our wat
rebut the existence OF that ute notwithstanding
Mr. Bradley may have, in an informal way, examined
h,m touching his recollection respecting It
We do not ask The witness 10 give any oil his opin-
ions, but testify with regard to facts He gave bis
opinions the ether day, because he Intercepted with
reference 10 them by The opposite counsel He bias pre-
cseiy identified the mining title brought here by Abbott
and Siocua by comparing with the copy which he took
Iai portion Of toe original n the aieades ONCE al La
gunIllas; and now ask bm 10 describe the appear
ance OF that original lie has already sald that be was
under The impression the Sierra dc la Huaseca range of
mountains were not mentioned in H. We expect 10 show
the jury that This ute fraud from the beginning
The cod We, therefore, submit TO The court-as The
copy OF the mining tle made by Abbott and Socum was
presented by the det,nce AFT our evidence ia chief had
bean thar lime II,
Prove thai iehrcauoH II would have been sntlci-
patng The OF the defence tor TO have entered
into examination Of tts paner before We forbore,
and thought II our duty 10 so until the counsel on the
opposite sde according To the regular rules OF proceed
ing, bad offered that paper We now mean TO call our
testify with regard 10 the appearance OF the
original We thhk that IL the proper time, and that
il would have been irregular 10 do so before.
DIR. Carlisle. This IL called question OF practice
agree thai nomnsiy il IS rule OF Practice which We
uierpose 10 thus examination and rule which not
matter oil torn, but matter OF substance has not been
adopted simply tor facilitating business, but Tor the prop
protection OF accused persons. IL has It's foundation
IN the principle mat he who - accused OF crime under
our law Is gniled before beng called on 10 make his
defence, 10 kear everything winch constitutes the body
OF the accusation the part oil The government That
is only far and reasonable, but 1t essential TO pre-
vent frauds the OF public justice. II you
depan from that rule, you put 1t IN the power OF any
pros euuon 10 bring ITS case out by plece-meal Unless
that rule be observed cerlau portion oil the case oil the
prosecution may 6r introduced, and the defendant may
make has defence under The Impression that Is their
whole case but alter he has made il they may intro
duoe other matter because OF the de-
fence. do speak Of tie present case bot refer 10
general principles Your honor said, when called upon
10 decade questions OF evidence and practice that you had
nothing 10 do with the motives Of either the prosecutor
the science, hut that you sat here to lay down rules
TO be used IN AL cases aud 10 prevent fraud You there
fore assumed the possibility that in some there
might be irasd " this rule be departed from, Tree scope
will be gwen 10 fraud.
| submit that there is discretion in the world TO
dispense with the rule, II this particular case fall within
its operation. recollect the count said ia the case OF
McDuse, that IL fixed rule with 10 require the
prosecution 10 show its whole once, aud before
the defence was entered upon. From that Jay this,
do not know OF single instance in which your honor
has departed from Il.
II is said that this testimony relates 10 matter which
involved ia the prosecution, but which set
up Substantially by the defence II is only that prn
clpe that they seek TO escape the operation OF the
rule Ii itbe not substantive matter up by the de-
PENDANT and involved in the original case, suppose
they cannot Zoe moment contend that they have right
introduce evidence to meet IT. 10 that SUPPOSE
ton II would have been matter IN chief They say II Is
matter Chief because the defendant had set up and
relied The mining ttle IL is called from RIO Verde
The mining title from Rio Verde more matter IN
chief than this because the Indictment for false
ing particular memorial which claims proprietary
right without showing whence derived. So II the thing
is 10 be limited United States not bound TO at
tack the mining title from RIO Verde until had set it
up They chose do the sake OF defending their
case and because they elt that could moi object TO IT,
They had the right bring evidence from every Office
IN Mexico ~ show that there was no mining tale be-
longing 10 he defendant any OF them negative the
allegation IN We memorial that be was the owner OF