The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-01-14

Criminal Court, ID. C.-December Term, 1888.
The UNITED STATES U.s. GEORGE A. GARDINER.
Indsetmsai for Fale stssaiag Second 1iia.
MoSDAY. JANUARY Q, 1854.
Twenty FIRST day.l
Mr. May informed the court thai he 10 make mo.
ton 10 relation 10 important subject which had been
informally brought TO the notice OF the court SATURDAY.
ast On Friday, the day before, document which the
defe adant had filed with the board OF commissioners in
support oil his claim, and which contained bis mining little
aud five depositions used 10 the argument cues
ton oil the admissbity OF two letters OF the defendant 10
Manuel Verastegu In evidence before the jury II dis
Appeared ana air ns %Sr had ny mas not
ing himself used 1t the occasion referred TO-
In the opening statement which he made TO the court Of
the grounds on which the counsel for the government
offered The evidence objected TO, he nsed memorandum
from the notes of his colleague, Mr. Fenda, Of the dates
Of the dispositions presented by the defendant to the board
OF commissioners This sufficient for his Mr. Ms
purpose He did not believe that on Friday Last be saw
the missing document After making the opening
ment he not much in court during that day. having
10 attend TO public duties elsewhere
Besides this paper, another had been los-the ndct
ment--irom very early day OF the trial. This loss,
however. not SO material, as the prosecution had
long before taken the precaution OF having copy OF the
indictment made and certified, and moreover the de-
PENDANT and his counsel had agreed that the certified copy
should be substituted for the original But the loss Of
the mining title and dispositions OF far greater
ment These papers alleged BY the prosecution
be forged and evidence Of the forgery had been given
fnuclmonI
Indictment for The forgery ofthe mining title also
pending. The papers missing were Of great importance
in this prosecution in the forgery in the chsnce
case, and the Investigation BY the Senate committed
Mr. May then noticed the size and remarkable sp.
pearance OF the missing document, consisting OF several
sheets OF dark paper connected together by red riband
II was on the trial table. and could not have left il by ito
yotion II must have been Withdrawn bysome agent,
either Inadvertently by design. II not Withdrawn
Inadvertently; Tor the counsel on both SIDES mad exam
ned their papers and could not find it. II designed
distracted The counsel for the government felt il
be their duty several grounds, bring this matter 10
the notice OF the As officers OF the court they felt
bound make known 10 it this spoiaton Of judicial
paper AS counsel ntrused with the charge OF it, they
desired 10 exonerate themselves in public and solemn
manner, from all blame for its loss and moreover 10
lay before the court such evidence OF the loss Of The doc
umen. and Of the efforts to find it, would let in se
Mr.. May then read The following atfdavits:
| M. FsndaLrs .a6davit
United States rs George A. Gardiner-Indcment for
false swearing.
During the session Of the court yesterday on the re-
quest of James M. Carlisle esq OF the counsel for
the defendant. handed to MIR. Carlise the document
numbered two, (2) containing the Rio Verde mining title
and five dispositions accompanying it. This document
had been presented by the defendant the board Of COM
mssioners appointed under the treaty Of Guadalupe HI
dalgo had been offered on the part OF the United States
in evidence this trials and is the subject of ndc.
ment for forgery now pending against the same defend
used in an argument which he was then addressing 10
the court. Very shortly after he had finished his argu-
he left the court room without having returned said
document, and have the since hand.
ed II to Mr. Carlisle. My seat 1t that end OF the
long table which is next to the seat Of the District Aor
ney. AT the other end Mr.. Carlisles seat; next
him the defendant; and next 10 defendant Joseph
H. Bradley. esq. also OF counsel for him. Between Mr.
Bradley and myself was un0ccupied space. When
the court about to adjourn. proceeded in coDjunc
lion with William Redin esq, according 10
throughout the trial. to collect and arrange the papen
the prosecution which bad been used during the day
the trial; but, after the diligen search, we were
unable TO find said document Thinking it possible that
1t might have got among the papers OF Mr. Bradley, who
had Just left the courtroom, message requesting
him TO RETURN which message reached him on bis way
TO his office. He turned back. met him in the ves-
bule and requested him look among his pspe and
If said document was there. Mr. Bradley laid his papers
table that stood near. and after examining them in
my presence, with the exception Of bundle. which be
stated had not been opened during The day, informed
that said document not there | then returned 10
The court room, where Mr. Redn and myself made an
other search, but could not find said document then
sent message OF inquiry TO MIR. Carlisle but the
sehgef did not find him at home, and he had returned
house. next addressed note 10 Mr. Carlisle request
ing him 10 search among his papers for said document,
reminding him that hat handed il to him. Mr. Carlisle
returned verbal answer that leaving the coart-
room, he left his papers there with MIR Bradley. On the
same evening Mr.. Carlisle called on Mr. May and my.
document from me- but that he had, after receiving my
note, searched his papers and could not hnd said docr
ment. ~. i
January 2, 1854
Sworn to- in open court, by P. r. FendalI, ESQ.,, this
9th day oil January. 1854.
Test:
]. A. SMITH, Clerk
JNO A. SMITH, CLERK. w