Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1860-11-03
Tn. Jsds. wa,reu. Imp.schn.p. Case.

u III
Supreme Corrt-Chambss-Hon William H
Lsos1rd, Jusries-Jaceea and Simon MussiDa act
Charles Stillpai, o. al -fhis well-known branch
of the Watrous impeachqent case, on which pro.
ESious ieference has been made in the Transcrfnt
came up on application Of the defendants fol
omrnfesions TO examine witnesses among whom
were Me ON cess Of Judge watrous's Court in
.Texas- The PLAINTIFF resisted the application
on the ground that Il was no; competent, under
the pleadings fog the defendants to use the testi
mouY which they seek to obhin by the commits.
sions at the trial.
The gracamsn Of the~semplaint in this e.
was, that by the collision Of the defendants with
Judge Watrous, through the machinery of his
court, the Plaiatifs had h.su htxexssd 81 thsIs
title 70 the city OF Brownsville, Texas for which
ssss wss ns,gsa e
conspifng, and confedefating to cheat and de.
fraud the plaintiff catered into O corrupt end
Secret agreement. whereby 1T was sti pulated to
declare the titisof Stiilman Belsea Musins IL
rendered, Cavazos and wife, to aid the said con-
)fedestes In cheating and defrauding the defend.
ants, J and 3. Musina, out Of 7tbeif Interest IN
sad property, Were to convey the properly &c
PENDANTS, and that Judge watrous was a party e
the Arrangement (" -
On this issue and In opposition to the motion O,
defendants fos commissions the plat ffs contend
that there was no proper answer or affidayits O,
merits that while In their original answer the de
PENDANTS fully denied the above allegation. aver
ring that they dad nor enter into oHy coyrxpt OF
steret agreement rhatsUsr,' In their amend ed IN
swer they Yetraet this denial and counsel said
confess the substance Of the charge by saving tina
they did not enter into any SucK corrupt or secye
agreemsntas Is set forth In the eonplaist ,, This
plaintiffs counsel commended, was a full ad mis-
sion OF the charge, by the rule Of pleading, and
the retracdOn Of the former denial; and as tn,
amendment was sworn to BE- material and ne ces
sarY, 1t must be conceded that there was no Ion
stood confessed. -
The plaintiffs further resisted the application or
the ground that IL was not ..sade In good faith
and that the bona fd Of the defense has nsve
been supported by single afiidavit since the de
Pendants were compelled to answer, the verifica
ton Of the answers having been made by an at
tFney, upon the :" personal stateinents'I OF one O.
the defendants, without alleging the statement u
have been made to him; and further, that nearl,
every allegation Of the answer thus made has been
dBproved by defendants testimony; and that OF
the thirteen afidayih Of merits filed In the case
i've, which were made before the answer are exac'
and formal, but the eight siace the answer were
informal and defective e. ."'s-. y 1' - .
The defense made no heightened reply, and the
Judge held that as the testimony sought 70 he OBJ.
tanned by these commissions Tor the defendant,
might be valuable for us as In mitigation Of dam
ayes, and althoug proper affidavit Of merit had
me- been made yet as on the question of damage,
alone one could be made in any case he should
direct the commission to issue. but should SO make
the order as to permit the plaintiffs to put theiI
case on the January calendar, and limit the stay
OF proceedings TO the lst day of FEBRUARY ~ =
Lott Z. Clark for defendants and motion; n C.
Gardner for plaintiffs and in opposition to motion