Southwest-sentinel. [volume] (Silver City, N.M.) 1883-189?, 1895-07-09


The recitals ato sufficient
Brown vs.. Piaii. 9 Cranch G. O. ESQ
Moore We. Nelson, 3 MrLano. $50.
Contrai Garrett vs.. Woodward. g
Crauch, 81 q. 100
II Is also objected that tho special
examiner hes not been sworn TO ror-
form bis duties as such.
The special examiner in this case
was appointed under q written stipula-
ton aud cOnsenting to the appoint
mout Of Mr.. Holt, aud whilO it would
be entirely proper and perhaps the
better practice for the examiner 20 be-
sworn % faithfully discharge bis du.
lies. there rs no express requirement
III law on this subject. II has not
been the practice for either masters or
examiners TO take such an oath, and
under such circumstances an objection
upon such grounds should have been
made at an earlier stage Oi the pro-
ceedings.
It IL also objected that the report
purportlng 10 be n transcript Of the
testimony Of each of said Witnesses is
only n copy OF such alleged Transcript,
and that the report Of tho special TX
aminor does not purport TO be a report
of the testimony Of other Of said wit
nesses.
By the written agreement under
which MIR. Holt was appointed exam
liner 10 was expressly stipulated that
these contest cases should be eOnsoli-
dated for the purpose Of taking the
testimony. That agreements was
doubtless made 20 avoid the necessity
of having the witnesses give their tes-
timony 10 each case separately as that
course would have involved not only a
large expense but wOuld hago COZ .
sumed much time. All Of the wit
nesses we're accordingly examined as
though offered in the bne case and a
t%ranscr pit of tn Il testimony was ma Q
out for each case. The testimony " 8
offered ans the record shows that IL
was as much direct and original testi-
mony il one case as in another, and
neither was any more or less a copy
moreover, the certificate of the exam
liner expressly recites that each tran
script is a true and correct transcript
Of the testimony OF the witnesses.
may say in conclusion as TO oil OF
thefe matters, that the moving parties
stood quietly by while $50 pages Of ties
iimony we're being taken and while q
J. NAhA0 uANAnGA VI MINnAEEII HAA0 ANAAIA
examined. This not only involved the
expenditure OF a large sum of money
which would be entirely lost If this
testimony should be suppressed, but
moreover, it would at least violate the
purpose of the statute IN reference to
contested elections, for whether the
80 day period shUuld be considered as
a limitation upon the time
within which testimony may be taken
or not, the statute was intended to AZ.
ford a speedy method for determining
the private right to a public Office by
election, and already half of the FIRST
year has expired, and if this testimony
Is to be suppressed the taking OF the
testimony under this contest will have
to be commenced over. It seems to
me that the right and Justice Of the
case require that the parties shall
make their objections timely,
This brings as to the last ground Of
the motion; that the testimony of said
witnesses was not read over TO them
after being given.
This is not waived by stipulation, nor
is it waived by any act of the parties.
La the nature of things it was neees
sary that before the transcript could
be read over the shorthand notes must
n1NO UNGu NIAUEtIlUtu HIS was
necessarily ~done,after the appearances,
examination and cross-examinatlon OF
the witnesses. But if the examiner has
failed to perform this duty either from
Ignorance or other misprisOn, it IS
nevertheless an omission on the part
of an officer of this court and il is not
too late TO have that omission cor
rected, and the examiner will be
directed 10 read over the testimony Of
each of SAID witnesses who is brought
before bim by the party IN whose
behalf he was Introduced, with full
privilege on the part of such witness to
make any and all corrections he may
see nt to make, including the right to
qualify, retract, or add 70 his state
meuts, aud * any corrections are
made by him, either party will be at
liberty to further examine or cross
examine such witness in relation
thereto, and il either party deems it
expedient the court win attend at such
examination.
Subject to this specific direction, the
motion to suppress aud the exceptions
to the examiners report will be over
ruled.
/ now come TO the consideration OF
the motion to re-take certain testi-
/ nlOIJs e. uG nAob hlNAlDA Va AniE llNtAHAA
was also embraced in the moiirn
already passed upon, aud it will not
be necessary TO say more on that sub
iect. The second and fourth grounds
are that such witnesses have been
talked 10, tempered with and iniln-
enced by the contestant, his attorneys,
abettors, etc that such witnesses were
continually Ia Communication with
some of The contestants and others and
were instructed by them as to the
answers which should be given or
refused and %persuading such witnesses
to give testimony favorable 10 contest
ants.
In what particular these Witnesses
were talked 10, tampered with oriuiin-
enced, the motion does not dis
close; it does rot aver that any Wit
! nesses had been induced thereby to
give any false testimony or that any
injury whatever occurred thereirom.
If any witness has been induced To
depart from the truth or to withhold
the truth in his testimony the court
has power to and will punish the Of
fense. We believe there is ample pow
er in legal process TO strike down any
corrupt testimony, and to punish those
who have been instrumental in impOs-
ing such testimony upon the court.
Bat the allegations here are too vagur.
10 say that a witness has been talked
10 or tampored with or influenced
without showing more, and without
showing at least some injury or false
testimony as tho result OF such talking.
tampering or influence, aud without
sho Ning how or IN what respect, is
clearly insufficient.
The fifth ground is that snch wit.