Newspapers / The Raleigh Minerva (Raleigh, … / June 25, 1807, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Raleigh Minerva (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
... t y- -. . ' ,- ' ' - . ' : ' ' : yi - .v . . ...... : : - .. . .- . .. - i . wg DOLLS - . . T- W l PUBLISHED (weekly) BY WILLIAM BOYLAN. ?t a Kir. RALEIGH; N. C.) THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1807. No. 586. Vol. 12' few. TKIAL OF CONTINUeO. Saturday j June 13. mane nation. If then the subpoena be used of the absense of witnesses whose testimo whichen only be decided ft the trial, without ttuiry into the manner of its ap- " ny the. defendant alledges is material for jIf was with sojne surprise an argument plication. itVtjnld seem to trench on the " his defence and who have disobeyed Ike was heard frojnine bar insinuating that the privileges whicrrthe constitution extends " crqmary process of the court. fyeomph- award ox subpeena on this ground gave ance with, the intimation from the bencn the countenance 01 tne court to suspicions to the accused, it would seem to reduce " ance with the intimation from the bench the countenance oi the court to suspicion - If shaft's Opinion on- the motion to , his means ot detence within narrower n- yesieraay, ine uejmaani has aisciosea. by anectiDg ine veracity 01 a witness wno is ufcs ' T9:Ar,t rnnrludrd. mils ihan U designed bv theundamental 44 the affidavit which SI have rust read, t he to appear on the' 'part of the United States' ;$uPfipc ( to e jjs per- iiW f out country, if an overstrained ri- " points to which he expects the witnesses This observation could not have been tpn- jfii being, summon . J. v our should be used with respect to his 44 who have been summgned will testify sidered. In contests of this description !i.tei'oacc wN- riht to aDnlv for D3pers deemed by himr 41 If the court cannot, or will not issue the court takes no part: jthe court has no sell to be material. In the one case, tne compulsory process to bring in the wit- rignt to taice a pari.- jcvery person may accused, is rbadc the absolute judge othe 44 nesses who are the objects cf this applica- give in evidence testimony such as is stated testimony to be summoned. UV in the 44 tion then the causp ivill not be postponed, in this cas. What would be the feelings other, he is not to judge absolutely for him 44 Or if 'hvppedrs to the court that the of the prosecutor if in this case the accused . . ' to his knowledge fell, nis jntJgment ougni to uc comruuicu muiicr uijvtosvuuy ntc uywuvii migm suuwu jjiuuu vmutM v,umjunvi tami ,wlirh have corn i . g j s0 liir as it -J9 apparent that he means 44 be given in evidence if the witnesses were pating himself, and the Attorney for the :. than by. .v ritinjr . ine court ... . .ri l- . ' . tT:..i e. -i u u i l ... there creat ziminate between the President V.e ri;izen, what foundation :3 ' ..mu.n that this difFerenee is r . .titsce tKat-thi test i mom' P ' . hi. r,ncatnn nnt ..,.iBIf UWIl "if . " ' ' m -7 l - 1- 1 . - tl t A L . . . I T.,..l Ctifn. ehnulrl h. 4rr..tar1 .n hi. r.icf " .- , . . ..i- to exercise niS priVlieues, not rcany iu ins hqw ricrc. men wc luiirivi vur uiiiitu uwim anuuiu uy .nv.ovku in mvr . .,a.u no lounuation lorsucn an up- . r o . . . r- v r tt i.- t: i t--"i iapeFtb,. own delence, but lor purposes which tne motion will be success ui.r or ti wouia tempt xo prove wiui mcsamc witness nw ". ' A ' ' ,i.ni court oucht to discountenance. The court 44 be absurd to I tn fl rase 13 icaiimuut uivia u.w..iu -' . . . .' . . . .. .. .. suppose that the court will said upon a former occasion by a declarati- i .t I . i . ' . 1 . ! . . - L . ...ji ... ' .A ylAMiii. ah .Ka- tnrkn trio etirn it .ft.mn the WOUIQ not lend US aiu to mouous uuvjoup- pvstjsunc trie iriamn ullvutu y miociivc uu huiumik. ' m uwi aiuiiu, A v designed to manifest disrespect to the 44 of witnesses whom they cannot compel to could net be permitted because it would im- i .in tn -inv covernment, Dut.tne c.-urc naa no rigni io appear; ana or zvuasc veiumary uumu- yiy -suspiciwu uw. wun v.-v ua .ui. cr? CKW then mtiy IS iue to any b ' a, in mtlt.h n J,h,V . hiilnAt unnlcen the truth ? Uesnectintr so rt'lUHC 113 Hi IU lllUlllHi!) ,;i,lil LW ll HIVIl ul.b mill w. l-U'iii. v J - j ,V rt-aracter of the paper, not on lr nrsnn who holds it. ,rtfter' t . I 1 .... ni'lin-ivii eftiKi-rrtQ m'JtT 3;l(i( directing him ftfch the party pray .i i n i o fci i icneces.iaty process fwchpr-r. ... IV'.icn (his subject was suuueniy iniro- ,fl.(l tlue court Iclt some doubt concern . i i -. u . . .4 ...uH n-. a u M r.iA.A- st ii.t)A Arrit f nofc ii n i tier t n 3 r i in inrPTnni uian niir nnp. nninu to brine anv paper of tneaccusca mayuc cuuucu, 4uu wmi.ii vi ui un.iu y j - - i r . .. th '. a.. Ke material in hisletWr. tT were "before the court, could" on could be formed. ingun bl - TKe. nht..atmti-ar(. mad to shew the ot'Aif Awrrf on the trial.1 The 2d objection is, that the letter con- , r . ' . ntnre ol th fIiqrretion"which mav be ex- This argument states unequivocallv the tains matter which ought not to be disclos- tor ooiainini? me view w . J . . . . . - 1 r - . A l - . - 1a. ...U.Ak ft AMAAl.ll 44 W I A.. TIB a. ercised., ii it is apparent uiamc papers purpuac iui wmvn ojjtvim muTu c are irrelative to the case, or thatx for state required. That there may be matter, the product!- reasons they cannot be introduced into the The counsel for the United States consi- on of which the court would not require, ght. Atter is eertam ; but tnatMU-a capital case tne ac purpose of cused ought in some form to have the be- . . r r - r ?. ii a vI-: not prooa- nent 01 it, u u was reuuy essential 10 nis '2 propriety f directing a subrcr u to Tdefenc, the subpeena duces tecum wouldbedered the subject in thesame 1, & 2f.at,A and some d.Ut also useless but if this is not apparent ; if they5hib,t,ng an afficlavit for the - a., .r mav be imoortant jn the defence; it thev showinc that the witnesses could - l.a i--a i-r ti riirri i ' n in i v vr - r i ru...ub r , w'iKlie in may be safely read at the trial, would it not bly possess any material information, ivir. delence, is a position wnicn tne counwouia . Iprin bis Pn,V,e","" Thtim be a blot in the page which records the.ju- Stanford said, 44 It was decided. by the very relucuntly deny. It ought not to be iorr, to be t-x,u.itea ' . . - 3 i al oce. i tri s this -country, if in a 44 court yesterday that it was incumbent on believed that the department which super- tnat the qu itions v m n rt g u j . u defendailf in ordtr to entUle himself intends prosecutions in criminal cases, win-consiqueoceotsucn pro denied the use of them ? 44 to a postponement of the trial, on ac- would he inclined to withhold it. What nfthe process than on ..... tUt.n ctrnnrr on the m!n(J 9 . , a u... .u -mtnpt;nn Tvith insist that a m v I lKJ K " 1 for the United States take 44 count of the absence of these witnesses, ought to he done untiersucn circumstances viw of this subject, and 44 to shew in what respect thev are material presents a delicate question, the discussion ----. V a j .... a. ... .i" - r r .. .ll I... - 1 ntmn tor nroctss to obtain " for his detence. it was tne opinion oi oi wmcnii isiwcu wmnmr uc icuuc.- At present ,r.crnSRinn on the. re. tweu miouiu uc ucuiru uv. i... - w its issu- 1 he counsel cf a very diikrerit procts i iii ; . .1 L. a 1 ti .1 ... iU.i .4.A .ffi,!in'if in rnnn a rl nxcirir in thi fnnntf r. .. . 1 L nirin ti lllllill lit- M . : H II '1 11 1 V kill- O.lllb i. 1 1 1. UUUI44llk 1Mb i:i.IVI Ml . - - w ww hiueiv tney wnuiu ti . - ,f,L ' ,n. u r wi nnt he .rffirienr for thia it need t,n v be sa d that the Question does bill-ia anyminner reiatt totn.ni nign per .....f.. ..j-ljju uniimri... k,lt that the navicular facta ex- not occur at this time. There is certainly .vented their v eldine readily to - H 4"-1 irr . . u . . u.. .u- -uc.u .u.,-.i.,'e ti e imprsions, and induced the rrquej lufthnr- nomt tl not admitted micpr oe raecT. ' The result of that argutv v. "-r . - s... w . . i.v -.L! a : L. r i-.r ,1a Aii- In favour ot this 1 he court trcquentiy treatea ine suojeci maucr mc m may appear uc.rc uic ui- t .t a - l : .. i i . : i 1 1 ia -i - a.a.m A... required on a motion which would delay "pectedfrom the witnesses must be dis- nothing before the court which shews that 13 a . . .1 h . 'i 1 1 .r rr.M iiti irr4Ki nix in i'iiiai.v llUllllllvlU44 VI .- ( . --.-v -Q; f .1 " . ... court canDerceive no oi we opposi.e priy s public justice, which would arrest tne or- ciosea,in oraer mat ine t uuu inigiu,ujj- mc ichci m ut.i.vi. wm-nn -u V4, dinary course of proceeding, "or which 44 on thdse facts, judge of the propriety of the disclosure of which would endanger would in any other manner affect the rights " granting the postponement." (Page 27.) the public safety. If it does contain such tertaiaetl. 1 he court carr perceive ny - V7.;r - ;r y . ih,t tK. -neri.l uhjeciion to iHuipa subpeeoa fltfCf a . . . M J r aj. ffidavit vvas reauircd only cvccount of mt,.,,M. .nrentiwhatpvcr. nroviuea j . . . s - . J' closure is made. It it does contain any matter which it would be imprudent to dis , ,DyjuSur.w,:i v.u1 '1 -ertlv denlore. whose worth I feel, and the continuance ; but what is conclusive on close,, which it is not the wish ot the txe- rthrdiscr;. WhosV;mtWityIsha .stu cutive to disuse such matter, if it be not T " . resnect. If his opinion was really oppos- mony ot the witnesses to be sucn as couia immediately ana essentially appiicauic 10 ,v ed to mine I should certainly revise, delU not be offered to the jury, Judge Patter1, the point will of course be suppressed. It ujHfs discretion, is a motion not to berately iie the iudgmtbt I had formed, son was of opinion that a rule to she vlr is not easy to conceive that so much of the iitwn, but to its juogment, and its ) llcfiop position. - cause why an attachment should not issue1 letter as relates to the conduct of the ac jent -is to be guided -by sound legal f IPce e Vand O.den. the cuCht to L Rr.nted.-He could not haVe cused, can be a subject of delicacy with 'Tk J frmn an court in which Judge Patterson nresided, required the materiality of the witness to the President. Every thing of this kind A mbfaw duces ' ' .V ' ? requ'ued a special affidavit in support of a be shewn on a motion, the success of however will have its due consideration on cramary suhpteaa onlyin uou made by the counsellor the accus- which, did not, in his opinion, in aay de- the return of the subptf.a. mis summoned for the purpose i of bring. f . attachmcnt ee dffpend on that materiality j and which- 3dly. It has been alleged thata dopy may witn h.m a paper m his Y- ln inst w-Itne5SC3 wk?had been summon, he granted after-deciding the testimony to be received instead of the original, and the icrne o! ur S9ter states whose sysjem of had fai,ed1oittend. be such as the Jury ought not to hear. It act of Congress has been cited ill support diT'i tl'' S thisrocesseani this'requiti'on-df a special affidavit is then most apparent that the. opinion of of this proposition.. ton with our own process . e earn (naJrr1 as otindlton for an at- Judge Patterson has been misunderstood, This argument presupposes that the let. nueso -course. In this state ,t issues continu .the cas and that no inference can possibly be drawn ter required is a document filed in the de- t ahr- lately of coupe, bu. h leave ot , - from - d D the incj lc which ha3 partment of .state, the reverse of .which j court. tSchment was considered hy the counsel been laid'down by the court. That prhv may be and mostrobably is the fact. Let- Wievetl, m. which the motion has .been, . a . mpan of c5nte ;ii therefore be amlied to the pre. ters addressed to the President are most riin,J.l mnin 1 It Hi! ' -- " - I - - . V "UU4JCU uu au aim wn denied, or in wu. It has been Wh rh it h7beeTob punishing the contempt, and a court might sent motion. . , usually retained by mmseii. i ney oo not TruvoLSStX cenainly requiie a stronger testimony to The first paper required is the fetter of belong to any of the departments. .But A . " ; , induce-lhem to punish a contempt, tnan. uenerai w uitinson, wnicn was rcicncu wcic m- v "" ffe party can regularlyrno more n lend its ad to a party in the Message of ihe President to Con- answer the purpose.; The copy could not mttrest ft the awardmfl a subpeena auces oc 1 - ' ' Tk. &.i,iJe,t't-. .ht letter to he R,.nerior to the or trinal. and the oricinal to, than inthe awarding art ordinary 10 procure vueuce f ' V;r"w"fc"7:. . :.Wrh w l&U not he dmitte ! if denied with. ,r.ost conclusive that the special statements the communication was made. It is a state- out proof that it was in the hand writing ot "A A, ' I.'."-'' of the affidavit were count of the continuance Although ihe States considered - a a a no 'i mnHp nl niiniehmtr f . J - . .1 J a A f -.A m Ir hi. Writ- u Ca.,v. rirrrion . inF neDdniiicm ui a.-. -- .-..- ' W - - A .A A '.a 1, . 1 .1 a A. A. Bo c5na In either case he may object to i')' delay, the grant 6t,whicrt may be im- "f m granting the shbpcriabut he can more ohiect reerularlv to the legal means ""obtalnioff tesCimonv , which exists in rs, ,thaji testimony which exists nd of the person who may -mm-mrd. If no inconvenience can temP7 sustained" bv the onno3.te party he can 1 r t v oppose the motion in the char Naming cjtTin tn nr.vpnt the. court Fronv ance Mine an im -,rnnr orrUf nr from bur- tii13 ProC:S97 .ninSmi.v.R?AA. u mnifiiin 'lliin(ttst tne ore -.viiiiiiav x 1119 v.vui ti - miv ' " ' 1 r -''nsiruciiort the constitutional and le- .roo t?l rigiit to obtain iK Brocess to wmbel the Brante required solely on ac- mcnt ot tne conduct 01 tne accusseu mauc me -wunees. uppw?? w Hv.v .i- by the person who is declared to oe.tnees- par 01 an lnaicimcni on inis icucr iwi counsel .for the United sential witness against him. 1 he order for bel and on its production it snouiu -appc-r the motion for an attach- producing this letter is opposed : not to oe m tne nana wmrag uicF u . . - f a . . . ti i . - z . - . a aI .a.a Ha - Miin ira I inir . r I iiiinri ill tnrrnn isr. nrciusc u is noi maicrui iu uit uc- iiiuilhu. , wuu w.wa, . . : - . ... r ... .. r considered it as compulsory - process to It is a principle universauy acKnowicog- mg or suujcti ,, iu in V witness, and moved a cpntinu- ed that a party has a right to oppose ta tbe having wniten lt r . cnainiy uvi. , ur UntirtlMaouldhave' the Denefirort the purpose .then of shewinglhe letter to lhe-continuance was ta ar- declarations wnicn mat witness nas ra-uc nave occu wmwu r,,;" "'r""""t. . 1 , . inary course of justice.nand at other times on the Same subject. ; If he original must be produced and a copy coui4 f eourt TequifecVa special alii- possesses this right he must onng iorwaru not oe aamiweu. u wrA7T;i;rrxr TrrcrrrfTntrthotciarauons.lisnrooi - un tne connucnuai u-iurc ui mi .w ny belore this continuance could be must be obtained before he knows positive- fiteT. Prima foci. the evidence 'could; Iv what the -witness' will say. for if he waits ti . - 't .' ' : V' ' '. Ail At.. A.A Una U.AAA. U A A 1 Vl A. trj ?l 1AA ! I I C I IT A. ' - r . .. - . . r a .. Till! 1 1 114 111 L11V. . . HHU 4111.-.1TM U AH".' -- . ' i:T"cr1 witnesses does not cxtena 10 ":rL.. 4. .;;.i .,ikj...-:J Ti,i it Irno lit,, to rneet hlrnwith I U;..ttt'l wV.n-. f . ?ce 1' W fiaitt:to be for a continuaitice. therefore, con,.itu:e . n o J. T " CotoS aAirnliy- hichU party hu bright toobt much has'beeri"'saB"at, tTiernuilrort ties. have been 'produced which appear to Had its contents been oral-, his former lv communicated the person to whorrr the" declarations; communications were made could bot.have f testimony excused himself from detailing them so tar im by 'way asthey might be - deemed essential in w necessity oi defeoce.-helr ing in writing, giyes ... . - 'HI .1 -4-. J. V
The Raleigh Minerva (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
June 25, 1807, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75