WRITINGS OF SAM HOUSTON, 1859
289
as to operate to the particular prejudice and detriment of Mus- sina. This circumstance alone will furnish an ample explanation of Mr. Mussina's much accused delay in taking an appeal. It appears that by collusion, and in defiance of law and jus- tice, Robert H. Hord was called by the complainants, and made a witness for them, on the trial of the Cava_zos case. Thereupon, having been sworn on his voir dire to testify as to his interest, the solicitor of Jacob Mussina, one of the defendants, put the following questions to him: ·"Have you, or have you not, any understanding or agreement with the complainants, or either of them, or their agent or solicitors, in relation to the determination of this cause, or of any of the matters involved therein, adverse to any interest or right claimed by Jacob Mussina in any property or rights in- volved in this suit? Are you, or not, interested in any such under- standing or agreement?" This question, Mr. Hord refused to answer, and, thereupon, the court decided "that the question need not be answered." As to this ruling of the court, the committee of the Thirty- fourth Congress say unanimously : "The court permitted Robert H. Hord, counsel for defendants, and witness covertly interested, to testify at the hearing of said cause, and sustained his refusal to answer the following proper and legal question, intended to show that he had a collusive interest adverse to Jacob Mussina." And a moiety of the committee of the present Congress sus- tain this view by the following declaratio'n of judgment: "The refusal of the judge to compel the witness (Hord) to answer the questions propounded to him by Mussina's counsel, and then permitting the witness to testify to a fact material to the issue, and in oppo~ition to Mussina's interest, was, we think, in violation of law." "The action of the judge, in the instance spoken of, seems to be subversive of all recognized principle, and to admit of no excuse." The testimony of Hord, which the court admitted, was of great importance. It went to the main question of the genuineness of the title of complainants. His testimony was important, as against Mussina, and others of the defendants; and it further appears that with Mussina he had held the most confidential rela- tions, having been his agent and attorney. It appears further, from the testimony before the committee, that long before Mr. Hord was thus examined as a witness, he
Powered by FlippingBook