1
results found in
67 ms
Page 1
of 1
9 Sept 1804
Evidence
Circumstantial
Ch General
§. Modifications
By the above /all these several/ marks, evidence by deportment, though it be personal evidence as well as from a personal source, will be clearly understood to be - in no case direct - in every case circumstantial evidence. Its connection with the principal fact in question will be required to be made out and its probative force will be understood /seen/ to be reduced /reducible/ by the same connections /cause/ in this case as in the case of real evidence from a personal source. When subsequent to the principal fact in question - it being a punishable act it may operate as evidence of intention with reference to the commission of the act: a sort of information that may not so frequently be conveyed by purely real evidence. But when subsequent to that same act, it will most commonly be indicative of fear and nothing more - fear - the same sort of psychological evidence, as, at that period, will most frequently be the psychological fact indicated by real evidence.
Similar Items
-
Title: [29 Aug 1804 Evidence Circumstantial]Description: 29 Aug 1804 Evidence Circumstantial Ch.2 §.1. There can be no circumstantial evidence without real evidence. But a lot of circumstantial evidence may either consist of a lot of real evidence alone, or of real evidence combined with personal[?]. If the source of real evidence in case of homicide for example, the [...?] dead body, or the supposed instruments of death be itself exhibited to the Judge, the circumstantial evidence consists in fact[?] /purely/ of purely real evidence. If, the source of evidence not being present to the sense of the Judge, his conception in relation to it, be /is/ derived from the report made to him of it by some /any/ other person, it may be termed reported real evidence - the lot of circumstantial evidence in question consists of reported real evidence. Real evidence comes to /before/ the Judge much more frequently through the medium of a reporting witness /in the state of reported real evidence/, than in a pure state and without any such intervention as above described. In all questions relative to the probative force of a lot of circumstantial evidence, if the state in which it comes before the Judge be that of reported real evidence, the truth of the testimony must provisionally be assumed. The truth of such testimony - the trustworthiness of such reporting witness will be matter of investigation and dispute like that of any other witness, whose evidence comes under the denomination of direct evidence with regard to the principal fact comes under the denomination /notion[?]/ of direct evidence. But the subject of any such dispute /discussion/ /the question relative to such trustworthiness/ will be altogether distinct from the discussion /question/ relative to the probative force of the probative fact, considered as constituting an article of circumstantial evidence. Suppose the trustworthiness of the witness objected to, the testimony /the evidence he gives/ is [...?] not in so far as it comes under the head of circumstantial evidence but so far as it comes under the head of direct evidence.
-
Title: [9 Sept 1804 Evidence Circumstantial]Description: 9 Sept 1804 Evidence Circumstantial Ch. Generalia §. Modification [...?]. Evidence by deportment - by demeanour - by behaviour - by conduct by actions - all these denominations indicate nearly the same thing - personal evidence of this sort though it be of a nature peculiar to persons /besides having a person for its source/, and agrees in some respects with evidence by discourse, differs widely and materially from it in other respects. In the way of discourse, evidence can not be given by a person without the concurrence of his will, directed to the very object of inducing a belief of the facts reported by it: in the way of deportment evidence may be given - the existence of the facts in question suggested - without any such concurrence. Indeed it is mostly in the case when /in which/ if it depended upon his will no such suggestion - no such persuasion - would take place, that the evidence in the way of deportment is resorted to. discourse it is current /well known/, is the ordinary, most apposite, and most determinate and unambiguous vehicle for human ideas for personal evidence. Deportment is but an imperfect and makeshift substitute for discourse. Accordingly it is only when evidence in the way of discourse is not to be had or is regarded as fallacious, that /recourse is had/ evidence in /by/ the way of deportment is recurred to. Evidence by deportment is not - nothing but evidence in the way of discourse is - testimony nor that when extra[?] judicially uttered[?]. Questions substituted in some cases of natural defect for language /words/ are not deportment but testimony. Signs also, if employed instead of language, come under the notion of evidence by discourse, and not under that of evidence by deportment.
-
Title: [21 Sept. 1804 Evidence Circumstantial]Description: 21 Sept. 1804 Evidence Circumstantial Ch Failure Causes § Delinquency - Fear Add ambiguity on [...?] fear and anger? depending on idiosyncrasy. A sort of compound evidentiary fact composed of the symptoms in question and the occasion which brought them under observation will therefore in general constitute the slightest article of evidence that on the occasion in question can come to be adduced: and the probative force of this compound fact is the force which any infirmative facts of which the case may be found susceptible, will have to combat. Let us proceed in our inquiry of these informative facts.
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1