Question Twenty-second.-Is the place I of torture in the prison?-Answer. Yes, it was; but I do not know where it is now.

Question Twenty-third. How long were you in prison, and did any punishment or trial ensue?— Answer. I was in prison one month and eight days: no trial or punishment; nothing but a declaration which Mr. Begorral took from

me.

Question Twenty-fourth.-Did you at any time during your imprisonment hear the cries of your daughter?-Answer. Yes.

Question Twenty-fifth.-Do you know of your own knowledge the occasion of those cries?—Answer. I cannot say from myself.

Question Twenty-sixth. Have you heard the cries of your daughter more times than one?-Answer. Three times.

Question Twenty-seventh.-Are you so well acquainted with your daughter's voice, as to know that those cries proceeded from her?-Answer. Yes, because nobody else was in the place; I am very well acquainted with my daughter's voice, and if a thousand persons had been in the prison I could have distinguished it.

Question Twenty-eighth.-Did they appear to you to be the cries of a person under great suffering?-Answer. Yes.

Question Twenty-ninth.-Did you see your daughter shortly after the times of hearing any of those cries?-Answer. No. Question Thirtieth. After your daughter had been locked up as you have stated, were you either during the time you were in prison or after your discharge permitted to see her?-Answer. No: once Luisa being sick, sent for me to come and perform some trifling things for her, and the alcalde Don Farfat would not give me permission.

Question Thirty-first.-How long was it from the time of the first imprisonment of Luisa to that of your first interview with her?-Answer. About four months.

Question Thirty-second. Was Luisa then in prison or discharged?-Answer: She was in prison.

Question Thirty-third.-Describe the place in the prison wherein you saw Luisa confined at the first interview.Answer. Don Francisco de Farfan being the alcalde sent for me by an alquazil, and told me to go to the battery to take the declaration of my daughter. This was the first time I saw her: I found her attached to a bar of iron with four irons on her feet; and Luisa told me that Don Francisco Farfan had ordered these irons to be put on.

Question Thirty-fourth.-Was Luisa, at the time you saw her, in sickness or in health?-Answer. She was sick.

Question Thirty-fifth. -Can you state from what cause that sickness proceeded? -Answer. It appeared to proceed from her imprisonment and the irons.

Question Thirty-sixth. When you saw her, was she with other prisoners, or in solitary confinement?—Answer. In solitary confinement.

Question Thirty-seventh.-Did you examinc her at the time, and had she about her any visible marks of violence?-Ans. Yes I did, and found her wrist sore to the touch.

Question Thirty-eighth.-Was it discoloured or swollen?-Answer. It was black and blue, morado.

Question Thirty-ninth.—How long was it from the time of Luisa's first commitment to the time of her discharge?—Ans. Eight months and some days.

Question Fortieth.-Was you at any time shown a written order from governor Picton for the imprisonment of Luisa?-Answer. No.

The Witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General on behalf of the Defendant.

Question First.-What is your age?Answer. Forty years.

Question Second.-How do you know that you are forty years old?-Answer. I know it because when I came from my country I had a certificate of baptism.

Question Third.-Can you read or write?-Answer. No.

Question Fourth.-Do you know the nature of an oath ?-Answer. Yes.

Question Fifth.-State it? Answer. Not to deny a word or tell a lie, but always to speak the truth.

Question Sixth.-On what day of the month, and in what year, and in what part of the island was Luisa born?—Ans. I do not know what year; but it was on St. Louis day, I believe, the twentyninth of August, in Port of Spain.

Question Seventh.-Was the day of your daughter's birth registered in any parish? Answer. It can't but be registered in the church.

Question Eighth-Did you ever see the register of your daughter's birth?-Answer. Don Pedro Vargas showed me a copy of the register which had been given to him by the curate.

Question Ninth.-Who is Don Pedro Vargas?-Answer. He was the linguist of the governor, who carried away my daughter.

Question Tenth.-Have you any copy of the register?-Answer. No, because they are too dear; I had a memorandum of it in my house, but I have lost it.

Question Eleventh.-On what day of the month, and in what year, was your daugh. ter christened?-Answer. I do not know;

I know my daughter's age by the day of St. Louis.

Question Twelfth.-How old is your daughter this day?-Answer. Between fifteen and sixteen.

Question Thirteenth.-Have you any other daughter besides Luisa?-Answer. Another which I brought from my coun. try.

Question Fourteenth.-What is her name?-Answer.-Catalina Estredilla. Question Fifteenth.-Is she not some times called Benancia?-Answer. No; Benancia is another, who is twenty-three years old.

Question Sixteenth.-How many years is Benancia older than Luisa?-Answer. Benancia is twenty-three years old, and Luisa between fifteen and sixteen.

Question Seventeenth.-Which is the eldest, Catalina or Luisa ?-Answer. Catalina is eldest of all, and Luisa the youngest.

Question Eighteenth.—What is the difference between the ages of Catalina and Luisa?-Answer. There is a great difference, because Catalina is twenty-six years old, and Luisa is the youngest of my children.

Question Nineteenth.-Did you keep any family register of the birth and christeningsof your children?-Answer. Their godfathers used to make a memorandum of them.

Question Twentieth.-Who was their godfather, and what is become of the memorandum?-Answer. Their godfathers are all in my country except that of Luisa. I do not know what is become of the memoranda: in this country very little use of such things are made.

Question Twenty-first.-How then came Luisa's memorandum to be preserved? -Answer. The curate can answer.

Question Twenty-second.-Do you mean to say that the curate has the register of Luisa's birth ?-Answer. As she was christened here, he must have it in the register.

Question Twenty-third.-Have you any certificate of the day of your own birth? -Answer. I have sent it to my country to have it renewed, because it was very old.

Question Twenty-fourth.-Did you ever declare your own age before any tribunal in any examination in this island?-Ans. Never, because I have never been asked.

Question Twenty-fifth.-Do you know why your daughter Luisa was sent to gaol?-Answer. Because Don Ruiz charged her with a robbery which she never committed.

Question Twenty-sixth.-Before Luisa was sent to gaol, was she not living with Pedro Ruiz as his mistress?—Answer. Yes; on a promise of marriage,

Question Twenty-seventh.-Upon the said promise did they cohabit together as man and wife.-Answer. Yes, they lived together.

Question Twenty-eighth.-Were, you ever married?-Answer. Yes.

Question Twenty-ninth.-How long had Luisa and Ruiz cohabited together before Luisa was charged with the robbery?-Answer. Two years and five

months.

Question Thirtieth.-Had they cohabited together as man and wife during the said two years and five months?-Answer. Yes; during the whole time.

The witness was then re-examined by Mr. Hayes on behalf of the prosecution.

Question First.-Do you know how long it is from the time of Luisa's being imprisoned to the present day?-Answer. Before she went away she was one year free, and now it is three since she was discharged.

Question Second.-If your daughter was only ten years old when she was in prison, and as only three years have elapsed since then, how can she be between fifteen and sixteen now ?-Answer. No, I said that Luisa had fourteen years.

Question Third.-Do you mean to say that Luisa was fourteen years old at the time of her imprisonment?-Answer. Yes, not quite completed, going to it.

MARIA CALDERON her mark. JAMES MEANY, Interpreter. The Court then adjourned by proclamation on account of the lateness of the hour unto Tuesday the twenty-second day of January instant.

GEORGE KNOX Clerk of the Court.

At a Court holden pursuant to adjournment at the Council-Chamber in Government House, at Port of Spain in the island of Trinidad, on Tuesday the twenty second day of January, in the fortyfifth year &c. [as before]

Present

His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor.

Proclamation being duly made; Francisco de Castro government escrivano and keeper of the criminal processes was called by Mr. Attorney-General in continuation of his cross-examination on behalf of the defendant.

On the appearing of the said Francisco de Castro, Mr. Hayes, on the part of the prosecution, objected to the continuation of the cross-examination of the said Castro on behalf of the defendant, and moved, that the whole of the foregoing evidence of the said Castro be expunged, and produced the exhibit marked C

• See it infra.

(hereunto annexed) in support of his objection.

The exhibit marked C, being duly filed and read, the Court put the following question to the said Francisco de Castro, and he was duly sworn accordingly.

Question by the Court.- Do you mean to say that the answers given by you in your foregoing examination and cross-examination were not the true answers to the questions then proposed ?—Answer. I do not mean to say so.

The Court postponed the decision on the said objection on the part of the secution to the next court day, and on proaccount of the sudden indisposition of Mr. Hayes, adjourned by proclamation unto Wednesday, the twenty-third day of January, instant.

GEORGE KNOx Clerk of the Court.

His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor.

Proclamation being duly made Francisco de Castro government escrivano was called; and in his presence His excellency gave the following decision on the objection made by Mr. Hayes on behalf of the prosecution against the continuation of the cross-examination of the said Francisco de Castro by Mr. Attorney General on behalf of the defendant.

Having, since the adjournment of yesterday, attentively read and considered the several circumstances stated by Francisco de Castro, in the affidavit which he swore to in court, and which was read and filed; I should have been led to suppose, that by the mention he makes of the apprehension he was under during his examination on the twelfth instant, which had led him in consequence to protest against the answers which he gave to the questions put to him in court on that day, that his conscience had upbraided him with having in some instances given testimony not founded in truth; but he having been questioned to this point yesterday, answered, that such was not the case, nor did he mean to convey any such idea by the protest, or by the affidavit he had made. It would therefore seem that the witness felt conscious, that having withheld information which he was enabled to give, he had not fulfilled the oath he had taken before the Court, by which he is bound not only to give the truth, but the whole truth, which it remains still for him to do, in order to acquit himself of the serious obligation imposed upon

him by the solemn oath he has taken. I do not find that he can in any manner possibly evade this point of duty towards God without rendering himself criminal in his eyes; and I must therefore insist and require of him to adhere in the most scrupulous and conscientious manner to the oath he has taken, by speaking the truth and the whole truth in the answers he shall give to such questions as shall be hereafter put to him relative to the matters charged in the indictment now before the Court; and in so doing, I will pledge myself to afford him the utmost protection and security, both for his person and property, being fully determined to enforce the utmost rigour of the law against any person or persons, who could or should be wicked enough now or at any future period, by any act or deed, to hurt or in any wise maltreat him either in person or property for so having done. I must now require him to mention to the Court, on what circumstances he founds his apprehensions, as stated in the affidavit: And I must further desire he will mention the names of the persons against whom he alledges so serious a charge; and to describe how, when, and where he was so alarmed by the menaces which now make him dread the consequence of fulfilling the oath he has taken. It may however be necessary to inform him, that he cannot, under the alledged apprehension, be permitted to withhold his evidence; it being only on the score of infamy, insanity or interest, that his evidence can be deemed incompetent; and it is to be presumed he does not mean to allow the most distant idea that either infamy or insanity can in any manner be imputed to him, or that he is at all influenced by any interest but solely impelled by an earnest desire and intention of relating the truth. It is also proper for him to know, that no witness can refuse to answer to any question but to such as might criminate himself.

And it may not be improper also to observe, that any person who shall dissuade, or but endeavour to dissuade another from giving evidence, is subject to fine and imprisonment. The necessity of implicit obedience to the mandamus under which authority this Court is assembled is indispensable, and it is my duty to require the same from every one who is called to give evidence before it, exhorting them to speak without fear or apprehension, under the firmest reliance and assurance of the utmost protection, which either the laws can insure, or that it may be in my power to afford.

The said Francisco de Castro was then duly sworn, and the Interpreter translated to him the foregoing decision of his Excellency.

251] 45 GEORGE III.

Question by the Court.-Did you perfectly understand that part of the decision given by me, which relates to the protection I promise you, and which the law affords you?-Answer. Yes, I understood it.

Question Second, by the Court.-On what circumstances do you found the ap prehensions stated in the affidavit? Answer. Those circumstances I reserve as stated in my affidavit to which I refer. Question Third, by the Court.-Explain those circumstances?-Answer. I cannot mention for the reasons before given.

Question Fourth, by the Court.-As it is necessary for the support of justice to require you to mention these circumstances, I require you to do so on the pledge of protection you have received? -Answer. I have no doubt of your excellency's protection, but it is morally impossible for me to state them here, but in the Court of London.

The cross-examination of the witness on behalf of the defendant was then continued by Mr. Attorney General. Question Thirty-sixth.-Do you wish any part of your examination or crossexamination to be now read over to you? Answer. No.

Question Thirty-seventh.-Do you recollect both sufficiently?---Answer. I can't exactly remember all they contain.

Question Thirty-eighth.-Do you wish to explain or alter any part of either?--Answer. No.

Question Thirty-ninth.-In what part. of such examination or cross-examination have you erred from terror or apprehension of others?-Answer. I cannot an

swer.

[252

an affidavit, or was it suggested to you by any one?-Answer. I first suggested it.

Question Forty-eighth.-Did you give any heads or memoranda by which the affidavit was to be drawn?--Answer. I gave the heads, but gave no memoranda.

Question Forty-ninth.—Were the heads in writing?-Answer. Verbally.

Question Fiftieth.-Were they given before the Court of the 12th instant, or after the Court broke up?-Answer. Afterwards.

Question Fifty-first.-Did you offer to swear to such affidavit before any and what other judge?-Answer. Before judge Nihell, believing he had competent authority.

Question Fifty-second.--Did he admit you to swear to it?-Answer. No.

Question Fifty-third.—Why do you not name in the affidavit the persons of whom you say you have such apprehensions?— Answer. For the reasons mentioned in the affidavit.

Question Fifty-fourth-I call on you to name the persons alluded to in that affidavit?-Answer. It is impossible for me to name them, though I mean no contumacy or contempt.

Question Fifty-fifth.-Do you mean peremptorily to refuse to answer to the last question?-Answer. In exertion of my natural rights, it is impossible for me to answer to the said question for the reasons stated in the affidavit.

Question Fifty-sixth.-After the piquet had been applied to Luisa Calderon, was she confronted with Carlos Gonzales, and where?-Answer. Agreeably to what I have said in my affidavit to go to London to give my testimony, I refer to it for any further answer.

Question by the Court.-Do you recollect that by persisting in refusing to answer to that question you commit perjury? having sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? -Answer. I do not understand that I am perjured by refusing to give any answers in this cause, and implore your excellency's protection.

Question Second, by the Court.-Do you know the nature of the oath you have taken, and the duty it imposes on you?-Answer. Yes, I know it.

Question Third, by the Court.-Explain it? Answer. To tell the truth in all that I can answer.

Question Fourth, by the Court.-Is your evidence called to no particular point?Answer. In the cause of Luisa Calderon. Question Fifth, by the Court.-You arc required by your oath to tell the whole truth in any thing that relates to the said indictment, and by not doing so you commit perjury.-Answer. I have already represented the reasons for not

answering, and cannot comprehend that I can commit the foul sin of perjury by refusing to answer, because I swore in the affidavit to tell the truth, and the affidavit was admitted.

Question Sixth, by the Court.-Do you mean to persist in refusing to answer any questions whatever relating to the said indictment?-Answer. Yes, for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit.

Question Seventh, by the Court.-In persisting in this manner, not to answer any further questions proposed to you relative to the indictment, it will be my duty to commit you to gaol; and I wish you to consider well before hand; as your evidence appears to be very material, and as it is not impossible but that death may prevent your being examined in Westminster-hall, I am more particularly obliged to make you give your testimony in this court.-Answer. I persist in the affidavit I have given in; if your excellency thinks fit to imprison me in the gaol, I beg you to consider that I am the senior regidor of the honourable board of Cavildo by his Catholic Majesty, and therefore enjoy privilege.

Question Eighth, by the Court-Produce your commission, and the king of Spain's approval of it ?-Answer. I never received the said king's approbation, but I can prove that I applied for it.

The Court then ordered the said Francisco de Castro to be committed to the common gaol of this island until further order, for a contempt of this Court, in refusing to answer any further questions relative to the matters charged in the said indictment:

And he was committed accordingly. The Court then adjourned by proclamation unto Monday the twentyeighth day of January instant.

GEORGE KNOX Clerk of the Court.

At a Court holden pursuant to adjournment at the Council Chamber in Government-house, at Port of Spain, in the island of Trinidad, on Monday the twenty-eighth day of January, in the forty-fifth year &c. [as before.]

Present

His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor.

Proclamation being duly made, it is ordered that the said Francisco de Castro be brought up before this Court on Thursday the thirty-first day of January instant and then produce the certified copy of the exhibit marked B before directed.

On account of the indisposition of Mr. Hayes, the Court then adjourned by proclamation unto Thursday the thirty-first day of January instant.

GEORGE KNOx Clerk of the Court.

At a Court holden pursuant to adjournment at the Council Chamber in Government house, at Port of Spain in the island of Trinidad, on Thursday, the thirty-first day of January, in the forty-fifth year &c. [as before.]

Present

His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor. Proclamation being duly made the said Francisco de Castro was brought up before this Court:

It is ordered that the said Francisco de Castro be discharged from the commitment aforesaid, and he was immediately discharged accordingly

The said Francisco de Castro then put in the exhibit marked D* hereunto annexed which was filed and read. And his excellency was pleased to declare that the said Francisco de Castro could only be examined vind voce in court as the act directs, but that he might have a copy of the evidence he had given when his examination should be finished.

The oath was then duly tendered to the said Francisco de Castro, but he refused to take it in the presence of the honourable St. Hilaire Begorrat who was therefore requested to withdraw, and he withdrew accordingly. The said Francisco de Castro was then duly sworn. The Cross-examination of the said wit

ness was then continued by Mr. Attorney General on behalf of the Defendant.

Question Fifty-sixth.-After the piquet had been applied to Luisa Calderon, was she confronted with Carlos Gonzales, and where? Answer. I remember that she was confronted with him, and believe it was in the gaol-room. I refer to the proceedings. I also remember another verbal examination in the tribunal of Mr. Begorrat.

Question Fifty-seventh.-Were they confronted at Pedro Ruiz's house?Answer. I also remember several questions were put to both at Pedro Ruiz's house, at the time of the examination of the house, in the presence of several witnesses.

Question Fifty-eighth.-Was it after the first or second piquet?-Answer. I cannot recollect, it may appear in the proceedings.

Question Fifty-ninth.-Was it before or after the first piquet?-Answer. I do not remember.

Question Sixtieth.-When Luisa Calderon went to Pedro Ruiz's house, did she walk, or was she carried?-Answer. She walked.

Question Sixty-first.-What is the

* See it infra.