Mr.  MEPtBtlMON.  We  were  not  bound  to  introduce  all
the  evidence  at  the  outset  that  we  might  have  introduced.  We
were  only  bound  to  offer  evidence  until  we  thought  we  had


TRIAL   OF   WILLIAM   W.    IIOLDEN.  2221

made  out  a  sufScient  case.  Then  upon  the  reply  it  was  competent
for  lis  to  strengthen  our  case  if  we  deemed  it  necessary.  They
have  contended  in  the  argument,  and  they  have  even  thrown
into  the  case  a  httle  testimony  for  the  pnrpose  of  showing,  I
suppose,  that  tlie  goveraoi^'s  action  was  voluntary.  "We  offer
these  two  letters  in  addition  to  what  we  have  already  presented
to  the  court  to  show  that  it  was  not  voluntary,  and  that  he  put
off  his  action  towards  the  chief  justice  until  the  last  moment.
These  letters  were  wntten  as  they  show  upon  their  face  in  a
great  hurry,  and  his  action  v\'as  jsrecipitate.  We  think  this
evidence  is  competent  in  that  view,

Mr.  SMITH.  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  I  desire  to  say  that  the
gentleman  is  mistaken  as  to  the  rule  or  else  we  are  at  fault.
The  rule  is  that  you  stand  upon  that  evidence  which  you  offer
in  the  first  instance  unless  the  defendant  controverts  some  of  it
by  his  evidence.  You  make  your  j^riina  facie  case  and  stand
by  it,  and  upon  the  reply  you  can  only  offer  evidence  to  impair
that  which  v/as  offered  by  the .  defendant,  or  it  was  impeached
l)y  the  defendant,  to  strengthen  your  case.  This  was  apart  of
their  case  in  the  first  instance.
