Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
Full Title
The trials of William S. Smith, and Samuel G. Ogden, for misdemeanours, had in the circuit court of the United States for the New-York District, in July, 1806.
Author
Lloyd, Thomas, 1756-1827.
Date Added
11 January 2014
Language
English
Publish Date
1807
Publisher
New York: I. Riley and Co.
Source
ACHS Historic Papers Lloyd Family.
Topic
Smith, William Stephens, > 1755-1816 > Trials, litigation, etc. Ogden, Samuel G. > (Samuel Gouverneur), > 1779-1860 > Trials, litigation, etc. Venezuela > History > Miranda's Expedition, 1806. United States > Foreign relations > Spain. Spain > Foreign relations > United States.
About
More Details Permanent Link
Disclaimers
Disclaimer of Liability Disclaimer of Endorsement
OCR
WILLIAM S. SMITH. +99
lf
Q. Did you see Smith and Miranda together more than ence?
A. did, but I do not remember how often, 8
Q. Was it.after Miranda’s introduction to you? 1. Yes. I
have seen them walking on the battery togethers that isin the |
month of January last...
.. Q. Did Miranda. apply to you to charter a vessel? 2 Al do
not think that question legal. If he had applied to me to char-
ter, and I acknowledged it, it may be followed up to prove that L
knew of the expedition that was set on foot. -
_. Sanford. Did you charter a vessel to Miranda? Mr. ‘Ogden
was about to answer, when Emmet arose and said, he objects to
’ that question. Ogden adds, I do.
Emmet. We not only object to this question as it forms: a Tink
in the chain of proof, _which,.if once obtained, fastens round the
witness as well as the defendant. .I1f Mr. Ogden says that he did
“charter a vessel to Gen. Miranda, then they might, by coupling
. other testimony , show that she was fitted out and Jaden with arms
and ammunition ; then show the particular object of her destina-
tion ; and upon Mr. Ogden’s trial it will be competent to give in
evidence, by the testimony of a by-stander, that he had a know-
ledge or concern in the undertaking ; he therefore cannot be call-
ed upon to answer whilst he is under prosecution. I will state a
decision which has taken place on this head, which goes farther
than we contend for. It is the caseof Dr. Deman. The attor-
ney-general filed an information, ex officio, for a libel. It was
competent to be proved by the printer... In his defence, he stated
that the printer was indicted also. The court immediately de-
clared that the printer should not be asked a single question. whilst’
he remained under indictment, or until a zol/e frosequi was enter-
ed. But our objections go farther; we stand-on the grounds of
the constitution, and not the common Jaw ; and we must say that
our lips are hermetically sealed, as tg-answering any. qustions
which may tend to criminate ourselves. . We say that no ques-
tions can be asked of the witness in relation to any acts done by
himself which by some subsequent testimony may be so connect-
-ed as to tend to his own crimination... ~
‘Edwards wished the gentlemen had been prepared with more
authorities to support the point they have taken up. The one
that had been referred to, was a case notin England, but in Ire-
Jand. The books which generally serve as precedents in.the
United States, are precedents from the courts of. England. We
know not what modifications there are of English law in Ireland;
therefore we do not rely more on the cases in that country, than
in France; we are prepared to discuss this question of the nolle pro-
segui, and wish it to be decided on principle. I wish as much as
any man to protect every person in the full enjoyment: of: his
rights: and privileges. I do:net wish to go beyond .the legal
length i in this examination.
AMANO presi 21 et emer pen re