Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/363

 Ctacurr Conf, PmyjIvani¤_Di{td£t. gy; . 1 . The Sam: Cans:. vzgéa In the courfe of the trial the following points were ruled by the Court. ` I. The Attorn of the Dillriét propofed to prove, that a circular letter hadcheen written at Camryburgb, on the 28th of july 1794, by feveral leaders of the infurreétion, calling upon the militia oliicers, and other citizens, to aifemble at Bradocfr -- field on the aft of Angry? following, with arins, ammunition, and provilions;-that the witnefs had feen the original letter, which was left with bin; under inltruétions to p s it on to another perfon;4-and that the copy now produced was confor- mable, in fubitauce, to the original. But it was objected, by the counfel for the prifoner, that be-. _- __ fore a copy of the letter could be given in evidence, the lofs ci _ the original mult be proved; and even then the witnefs mult} ·. he able to atteli, that he had compared them, aud that the copy ` oilisredgwas in all refpeéta corre&. ·It was anfwered, by the Attorney of the Diftri&, that from the general circulation of the letter, copies mult have been mul- tiplied, and during a feafon of fuch confulion (to which the — common rules of_ evidence are  inapplicable) it isirn- praQi:lable to trace the comparifontofy any one copy with the · on n. ‘ ` ` . —‘ > gr ·r1-nz Corner. If it can betpzoved, that the copy of the - letter now produced, was one of fe copies, which were ac- tually circulatedat the time of the infurreétion, it is admiflible `ovidence: but, otherwife, it cannot be read to the jury. II. 'I‘he Attomey of the Diflriéi: offered teltimony to prove, that, in the courfe of the infurre&ion, the prifener joined in robbing the public mail of the United States; and that feveral df the letters, thus intercepted, had been read at the meeting at- Bradvcl’.r field. · ` ` " . But it was objeéted, on behalf of the prifoner, that the rob- bery uf the mail, was a felon, for which, as a fubllcantiveand · iixdependentéprime, he was agmally charged by another indi&- _ ment.; and that, therefore, evidence relating to it fhould not given on the prefent itiize, as the prifoner was not prepared i to-aulwer, and a' prejudicelmigllt be excited againfl; him lll the mind of the Jury. 5; i l`  Br urn Cctzngr. An-acfcomniitted with a felonious inten- tion, cannot bégiven in gevidence upon. the trial of an indiél- ment for High Treafon. It does not yetappear, that the mail was intercepted and riiled with a traiterous intention; and, as far as it ref peétsthe prifoner, there is another indiél ment againflz him, charginrp the ofence merely as a felony. Under thefe cir- uumftances 1e teltimouy cannot be admitted. · Jprd

�