Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1895-05-24

The objection was hence overruled.
The witness continued that, about s
O'Clock on the afternoon of May 30, 1892
he saw the Borregos on San Francisco
street opposite Fatterson's stable; he fol-
lowed behind them up the streeG toward
the Cathedral, as the people we're coming
out of church, and they went above; he
was not in the room when Francisco OF
Antonio Gonzales y Borrego were on the
stand.
Mr., Catron interrupted by saying that
he had seen witness in the court room at
times when he (witness) said that he was
not in the room and then protested that
witness had just given him (Catron) the
lie in Spanish. The conrt said he would
attend to that matter later and ordered
the witness to proceed.
In connection with tho Spanish reply
of the witness to the reflection upon his
veracity by Mr.. Catron, Francisco Con
zales y Borrego said something in Span.
ish in an undertone to the witness and
also whispered something to Mr.. Catron
Continuing, the witness said that, or
the day after Chavez was killed, he was
ut the house of the deceased's mother
WHY pHo Doty Wdo DcluS CiHDdlucu
This was ruled out as immateriai.
INSTRUMENTATION.
On cross-examination the witness de.
MED having been active in this case; de-
MED having endeavored to get witnesses
to testify against defendants; admitted
chat Julio Pine had called him and said
10 him that he (Pino) had been requested
~ Mr.. Catron TO testify that Sheriff Gun.
ningham had offered him (Pino) induce.
ments to swear against defendants; ad-
mitted that he had sent note to the dis
trict attorney that Pine wanted to see
him; that ut the request of the district
attorney he had held Pine and had gone
to the district attorneys Office with him
After brief cross examination, which
disclosed nothing of moment Mr.. Catron
reminded the court of his promise to
attend to the matter of the alleged insult
of the witness to him (Catron).
SENSATIONAL INCIDENT.
The court thereupon called the witness
to the bar and asked him to repeat in
Spanish what he had said to Mr.. Catron.
The witness repeated the words and they
were interpreted as follows: SHE who
says SO lies"
Mr.. Catron insisted that the words ut
tered meant: "He lied"
The court said that such language was
very improper and could not be tolerated;
that he might send the witness to Jail,
bat would not 90 SO; that he would simply
fine him $40 and costs.
As such fine was being entered up, Dis.
trict Attorney Crist addressed the court.
He offered no apology for the witness,
but, in order that the court might be fully
advised, he desired to explain that ne was
reliably informed that Immediately after
the offense of the witness Francisco Con
zales Borrego had said in Spanish:
"You are bigger liar;" that Mr.. Catron
had asked his client. Gonzales, what wit
ness had said that Mr.. Catron and the
witness had previously had several per-
sonal alterations, and that Mr.. Catron
had used abusive language toward the
witness. He thought the court ought to
understand this.
The court notified Mr.. Catron that the
conduct of his client was very improper
and that such things must not again
occur.
TESTIMONY RESUMED.
Nestor Rodrigues next took the stand.
He was acquainted with the four defend
ants and knew the deceased Hipolito VI
gil; saw Francisco Gonzales Borrego
and Hipolto together in John Conway's
saloon about shutdown on the night of
May 80, 1892; witness was in the saloon
an hour or SO that night playing pool;
during that time he saw Francisco Con
zales y Borrego in the saloon talking
with Marcos Castillo and others; he
named number of others who were in
the saloon at the time; when he went to
pay for the game before going home he
saw Francisco Gonzales Borrego 20 out
of the saloon alone.
Nemecio Armijo also testified that he
night of May 30, 1892, playing game
for about an hour and half soon after
shutdown, and saw Francisco Gonzales Y
Borrego and Hipolito Vigil at Conway's
during that time. The testimony of this
witness was almost exactly identical with
that of Nestor Rodriguez and need not
be repeated.
The testimony of Raca, Rodriguez and
Armijo was introduced by the prosecu-
ton on rebuttal and directly and speci-
tically contradicted material points of the
alibi testimony of Francisco Gonzales
Borrego and Antonio Gonzales Borre-
go as 10 their whereabouts on the after
noon and night of May 20, 1892.
At noon recess was taken until 80
p. m.