Smith, esq., is cashier, is the bank in which the general and I have kept our accounts for a long time, and, if in good repute when you arrive in New York, might be used. "The two hundred and seventy-five and a quarter ounces of gold dust I leave pretty much to your discretion to manage for me. It might be deposited in the mint at Philadelphia to my credit, and triplicate certificates taken, one of which to be forwarded by letter to my attorney, 'Thomas R. Love, esq., Fairfax Court house, Virginia;' one to 'Mrs. Mary W. Jones, of Sharon, near Prospect Hill, Virginia;' and the other to be retained by yourself. In a word, I want the proceeds of the gold so placed as to be available to my wife or my agent, as above; and I want it so arranged as to be most secure in the process of transmission. "Exchange is from one and a half to two per cent. in favor of New York, and against Virginia or District money. That may be worth looking to; but in this, as well as insurance, commission, and all other things and expenses in connexion with the transaction, I rely entirely upon your better judgment and kind offices. "From the above you will see what I want; and you will know best how to accomplish the ends after you reach New York-to which port I hope you will have a safe and pleasant passage, and a happy meeting with family and friends. "FLAG SHIP OHIO, "THOS. AP C. JONES, "Bay of San Francisco, November 25, 1848." The original whereof is hereto annexed, marked P. U. S. N. Question 15.-To what agent of Commodore Jones did you render the account referred to in the 10th question? Answer. I rendered the account to General R. Jones for Commodore Jones; and I now produce his receipt, appended to the account. The judge advocate states that he will not offer it in evidence until he shall have put other questions to the witness-which he proceeds to do, as follows: Question 16. Do you mean that the original paper now produced by you is the same identical paper which you referred to in your answer to the judge advocate's question No. 10? Answer. It is the same paper. Question 17.-Will you now produce and read it? "DR.-Commodore Thomas Ap Catesby Jones, 1848. TO JOSEPH WILSON. Nov. 25. To cash paid postage on letters ordering insurance on 275 oz. grain gold, at $18 per oz., $4,954 50 1849. June 11. To cash for amount insurance paid on $4,954 50, To cash for policy $1.00 81 61 1 00 1849. June 11. To cash for freight paid F. Chatard on 275 oz. grain gold, at 11 per cent June 23. To cash paid Adams & Co. for taking grain gold To cash paid discount at bank, per cent., per June 26. To cash for amount check remitted Mrs. Mary To cash for amount 1 per cent. commission To cash for the balance remitted by certificate $74 29 3 63 6 09 4,864 07 49 54 1,259 26 6,340 49 $4,870 16 1848. CR. Nov. 24. By 275 oz. grain gold, received at San Francisco, and valued at the U. S. mint at 1849. March 1. By amount one-third freight received on 11,108 oz. 7 dwts. 12 grs. grain gold at Valparaiso, at 1 per cent. June 20. By amount one-third freight received on 8,934 oz. 16 dwts. 11 grs. grain gold at New York, at 11 per cent. 666 45 803 88 6,340 49 "R. JONES, for Commodore Jones. "BOSTON, June 26, 1849.-Errors excepted. "WASHINGTON, June 28, 1849.-Duplicate." Which paper is annexed to the record, marked Q. And thereupon, it being near the usual hour of adjournment, the further examination of this witness is suspended; and his testimony, as herein before recorded, is read to him, and he acknowledges the same to be correctly recorded. And thereupon the court is adjourned until to-morrow morning, at halfpast 10 o'clock. DECEMBER 19, 1850.-Half-past 10 o'clock a. m. The court meets pursuant to adjournment. Present: the president, all the members, and the judge advocate. The accused is in attendance. The record of the proceedings on yesterday is read and approved. By the judge advocate: Question 17.-Look at the invoice and account referred to and pro duced by you in your answer to the eighth question, and see what is the first item therein specified as purchased by you, and say what was the cost of that item? Answer. As that is put up in different packages from what it was re ceived in, I cannot say positively, but should think it probable that it was purchased at ten dollars and fifty cents the ounce-two hundred and seventy five and a quarter ounces; which would make up the whole costtwo thousand eight hundred and ninety dollars and twelve cents. Question 18.-What means have you of ascertaining the cost? Question 19. Did you make the purchases of gold mentioned in that invoice and account on the days and times therein mentioned? Answer. Yes. Question 20.- Did you deliver the gold therein mentioned on board the Ohio by order of Commodore Jones; and, if so, was such order verbal or written, and when and where was it given? Answer. I delivered it there by the order of Commodore Jones. It was a verbal order. I cannot say from recollection the date or place. Question 21.-Where was the Ohio then lying? Answer. She was lying in San Francisco bay. of Question 22 (by the court.)-Commodore Jones, in his letter to you the 1st of November, 1848, assigns as a reason for directing the exchange of the money in your hands for uncoined gold, that the inhabitants of Upper California were in want of a silver circulating medium-why, then, did you exchange the gold coins in your hands? Answer I did it upon my construction of that order. The gold coin is as much a circulating medium as silver dollars. I had no other order than that written one. Question 23.-Have you any knowledge how the residue of the gold over and above the two hundred and seventy-five and a quarter ounces, or any part thereof, was disposed of? Answer. I have no knowledge of it. Cross-examined by the accused. Question 1.-Where was the Ohio lying, and where the Lexington, when the transhipment of gold from one to the other, to which your testimony relates, took place? Answer. I think the Ohio and Lexington at that time lay at Sansalito; but I cannot say positively. Question 2.-In your intercourse with Commodors Jones in regard to the exchange of the military contribution fund for gold dust, did he manifest any concealment in regard to those transactions? Answer.-None, sir. Question 3.-Was not all the grain gold which you purchased under Commodore Jones's order in bags when you first purchased it, and was not so much of it as is stated in your said account and invoice to be in canisters shifted by yourself from bags to canisters before you delivered it to Com modore Jones? Where was that done, and how long before you deliv ered it over to him? Answer.-It was all in bags when I first purchased it. Part of it was shifted into canisters (as many as could be procured on shore) for safekeeping before being sent on board the Lexington. The rest remained in bags. It was done up at San Francisco a few days before the ship (the Lexington) went down to Sansalito, seven miles off, where the Ohio lay. She lay there some days, all the time I was making those purchases, as stated in the account rendered. The canisters mentioned there were all the canisters I had or could procure on shore. Question 4.-Are you quite positive that you transhipped all the uncoined gold you purchased at San Francisco under Commodore Jones's order of the 1st November, 1848, from the Lexington to the Ohio, on or about the 25th November, 1848? Answer. To the best of my recollection, it all went on board on the same day, and at the same time. Question 5.-Do you know of your own knowledge that Commodore Jones had no other uncoined gold on board the Ohio at the time when you transhipped from the Lexington to the Ohio the gold purchased by his order? Answer.-I do not. Question 6.-Was not Commodore Jones's original proposition to you on board the Ohio, lying at Sansalito, to ship by the Lexington, under consignment to you, about three hundred ounces of gold from his own private stock of that commodity? and what passed on that subject between him and yourself? The judge advocate states to the court that in his opinion this question is objectionable; but he reserves the objection for the present, and waives it as to this question. Answer. It is impossible to recollect conversations at this distance of But my impression is, that there was something said with regard to the safety of the packages, and that they could be replaced; but further than that I have no recollection of the particulars of the conversation. I cannot positively say; but my impression is that I understood it as referring to his own private property. I did not know of any other property to be shipped except his property. Question 7.-Was there any reason suggested by you to him about the expediency of taking the two canisters, though less than the 300 ounces, on account of the greater security of the package, rather than the bags, in which his own private stock was contained, and as to his replacing the amount of the two canisters out of his private stock of such gold? and what passed between you and him relative to that matter? The judge advocate assents to the putting of this question, subject to exception, if the answer should be incompetent. Answer. I think I recollect indistinctly some conversation that took place on that subject; but, as to the particulars of it, it is impossible for me to say. Question 8.-During your conversation with Commodore Jones on board the Ohio, at Sansalito, in relation to shipping about 300 ounces of gold, for his account, on board the Lexington, did you not recommend the shipment of all the gold you bought by order of Commodore Jones by the Lexington? Answer.-I do not recollect that I ever did. Question 9.-Do you not recollect that, at some time or place between the 9th of October and 25th of November, 1848, on board the Ohio, or on shore at Monterey, in answer to a suggestion to send the gold which had been bought, or which might be bought, with the surplus military contribution fund, home in the Lexington, Commodore Jones replied that it could not be done, as he had reported a balance on hand to the Secre tary of the Navy, and that he must be prepared at all times to pay over when called on? The judge advocate states to the court that, in his opinion, this question is not competent to be put and answered; and, besides, that he does not see the relevancy of the question, even if he should waive the objection to its legal competency; and he therefore objects to it. He suggests to the accused to present in writing to the court a statement of the object for which the testimony is offered, and the grounds on which it is supposed to be admissible. And time is accordingly given for the preparation of such statement, which is tendered to the court, and read as follows: "The witness is on his cross examination, and it is not always practi cable or expedient to state beforehand all the uses to be made of the evidence to be drawn out by the answer. One of the objects may be to test the credibility of the witness, either as to moral truth or memory, by bringing evidence to prove that he did say what the question suggests, if he denies it. As to any question of the moral truthfulness of this wit ness, it is entirely disclaimed; that his evidence may be liable to some doubt of defect of memory is made apparent by his answers to former questions. "But altogether aside from any possible effect of the question to touch the credibility of the witness, the fact sought to be disclosed by the ques tion is entirely pertinent and competent under the strictest rules of evidence. "The gist of the accusation, in respect to this conversion of the military contribution fund into grain gold, is that it was done with a fraudulent intent to appropriate it to his own use; and that he carried that intent into effect. "There is no direct evidence given either of the act of such appropria tion or of the intent to commit it. "The only evidence given of the act is merely circumstantial and hypothetical, and the intent is inferred from the act; not an atom of substan tive evidence of intent being offered. "The only circumstance going to raise a suspicion of the act is, that there were among the canisters of gold, delivered by the witness to the accused, two canisters containing the same amount of gold as the two canisters remitted by the accused in the Lexington under consignment to the witness. "Then, as to the questions both of the fact of the misappropriation of the gold and the fraudulent intent of the act, is it not material and perfectly competent to prove, as it is in part already proved by this witness, that the transaction originated in a design to ship nothing but a parcel of gold from his own private stock; and that, when it was proposed to him to ship at the same time the grain gold received of the witness, he declined? "In the inferences, whether of fact or of intent, to be made from the circumstances stated by the witness against the accused, is not clear and bona fide proof of what his actual intentions were, pertinent and material? nay, is not his declining a suggestion coming from a highly respectable quarter-a suggestion made and declined while he was in the act of |