Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1896-09-02

Borrego and Patricio Valencia, two OF
the defendants, were in the agreement:
that their bject was to remove Francisco
Chavez because he was prominent man.
of great strength with his party, to which
they we're antagonistic and which they
wished to destroy in the county of Santa
Fe. He seemingly to them scquiesced
in their proposition, but, upon reflection,
having no reason to murder said Chavez,
he determined to put him upon his guard,
and accordingly sent him short note on
January 16, 1891, (which said note it was
proved was found among the papers of
Francisco Chavez after his death, and
was identified by the said Juan Gallegos
on the stand;) that afterwards to avoid
importantly from his accomplices to CO.
operate with them in the assassination of
Francisco Chavez, and from tear of them
as members of the "Button society,"" un-
der apprehension that they would become
cognizant of his betrayal of them, he went
to Colorado, where he was residing when
he heard of the death of Chat The
elements of truth in this statement are
manifest. One of the counsel of the ac-
cused stated the existence of the secret
"Button society,"" for political purposes,
and declared himself a i."Sber Of it, and
that Francisco Chavez was assassinatei
by the parties who petitioned the witness
to unite with them in the perpetration
has been declared by the jury's verdict
and the courts Judgment. It can not be
seriously contended that the declarations
of the accused we're not properly admit
ted against them, whether Francisco
Chavez was killed in pursuance of the
conspiracy revealed by the witness or
not. The note was no less declaration
of Juan Gallegos than the oral state
ments, and the supreme court of Illinois
in Lander vs. People, in 104 ILL.,, 24S, has
declared "that acts and declarations 80
intimately connected with the principal
event which they characterize as to be a
part OF the transaction itself, and which
clearly negative any premeditation or
purpose to manufacture testimony are
admissible" But there seems no reason
to deny continued conspiracy between
this clan, and in such event, the declara-
tions of one of them IN connection with
its object or it's purpose will be recog-
nized as the declaration of all.
"a conspiracy is not destroyed by con-
nection at subsequent time of new
parties Herewith, as new party agree.
ing to the plans of the conspirators, and
coming in and assisting them, becomes
one of them" Wright's Grim. Consp,
1919, Carsons Ed, citing U. s. vs.. Munne-
macker, Biss., Ill; People Va. Mather,
Wend., 30.
Part of the Conspiracy.
The note was the act of one of the con-
spirators during the existence of the
conspiracy. 1t was declaration of the
existence of the conspiracy by one of the
and was properly sub
mitted to the jury in connection with all
the evidence on the sub ject.
Judge Morrow, in United States vs.
Cassidy, 67 Fed. Rep. 703, announces that
"Any declaration made by one of the par
ties during the pendency of the illegal
enterprise, is not only evidence against
himself but is evidence against the other
parties. This rule you will understand ap-
plies to the declaration of co-conspira-
tor although he may not be under prose-
cution, his declarations being equally ad-
with those of one under indict-
ment and prosecution"
Bishup'7 Now Criminal procedure, sec.
1248, clause 2, says: "That vu it's bsins
shown that one or more persons were act
ing in concert with the defendant about
the thing in question, all with common
OBJ iect, declarations during its progress
by any one or the other, whether present
or absent, may be given in evidence
against the defendant"
It was in the sound discretion of the
Judge of the trial court to admit this note
as an accompanying act in connection
with the combination shown, and the ex-
ercise of his authority is not reversible
on appeal.
Wiboro vs.. U. s. 1853 U. s.
Says the supreme coart of the United
"That much discretion is left to
the trial court in the admission of such
evidence, and its ruling will be sustained
if the testimony which is admitted tends
even remotely to establish the ultimate
fact"
Clune vs.. United States, 159 U. 3. 500.
We do not deem it necessary to consider
seriously tho objection to the competency
of Ike NOVEL; and Porfirio Trujillo as
witnesses. The former was convicted of
a crime expressly designated as misde-
meanor by the United States statutes,
and sub jected to punishment in the peni-
tentiary Hard labor was not authorized
by the statute, and unless such penalty
be attached to the commission of crime
under the federal laws it is not an infa-
nous offense. Again, adultery is not an
infamous offense in this territory, as
there is no statute 80 charaoterizing it,
and its degree is here as at common law,
under which it was only misdemeanor.
Porfirio Trujillo was restored to the
privileges of citizenship by competent
authority according to his own sworn dec-
laratiou, and the Official records of the
executive department sustained him. Hav-
ing lost one of the pardons and not hav-
ino the other with him, it was altogether
legitimate to show by the territorial
archives that they had been issued to
him.
Another contention is that the court
erred in permitting the inquiry of the
defendants as to whether they were on the
streets of the city of Santa Fe west Of the
Cathedral between noon aud O'Clock of
Guo SObH uhy VI Mny3 AoOSS 10 A0 40 oA"AIu0es
that their presence during that interval
was not material. The defendants replied
that they we're not west of the Cathedral
IN the City of Santa Fe at any time of the
afternoon of the 29th day of May, 1892.
II is we'll settled rule that witness
can not be cross examined as to any facts
which are irrelevant or collateral to the
issue merely to contradict him, but
Starkie on evidence declares that "this
rule does not exclude the contradiction
of witness as to any facts Immediately
connected with the inquiry"
Defendants Located Themselves.
The defendants created the connectio on
and the materiality of their whereabo uts
Immediately before O'Clock by selecting
that as the hour from which to account
for themselves during the night, as the
probability that they were not strictly
accurate N ust be recognized as absolute