date

18 June 1803 Evidence Written
18 June 1803

Evidence

Written

V. Case the fifth: case of witnesses compleatly impartial: connected with neither of the parties by any special tie of any sort.

On the ground of utility, the provision called for by this case, (supposing the existence or non-existence of it capable of being established) which it is not, if being ascertained would be still the same: though in the one state of things the demand /cause/ for rejection would not be quite so forcible: in the other the danger of deceit in case of admission would not be quite so great.

The testimony is varacious at least as far as it goes: but because it is varacious, i.e: not mendacious, it follows not that it is either correct or compleat. By vivà voce examination including cross-examination, a /mass of/ /pick[?] of/ testimony to the same effect would have acquired its best chance for /security for the possession of/ both those[?] qualities: bereft of that advantage, it must take its chance.

In this ideal /[...?]/ case however, supposing it could be verified, and at the same time known to be verified, what is manifest enough is - that in the one state of things it /the species of evidence in question/ might be admitted with much less scruple than in any of the four ordinary cases which go before it. admitted as well where the preferable species of testimony is obtainable, as where that superior species being unobtainable, this inferior species is the sole resource. It is so in general, in the case of pre-appointed official evidence.

As to actual law - in English jurisprudence, evidence [...?] in this shape from a witness thus circumstanced - from a witness exempt from the action of every visible cause of partiality - could hardly be rejected /refused to be received/, at the period at which evidence of this stamp is received from a naturally partial weakness. But positive opinion in this case is hazardous, since the reason on which the admission of the evidence has been grounded in the case of the naturally partial witness, does not extend to the impartial. Where the post mortuary written evidence has been received, the reason has been - that the entry [...?] the memorandum - has been in the ordinary course of business: viz: in the course of that business which it comes in the way of the witness to transact in consequence of the more or less intimate connection and dependance created by the particular relation he stood in towards one of the parties in the cause.
Similar Items
  • Title: [7 Apr. 1803 Evidence Pre-exhibited]
    Description: 7 Apr. 1803

    Evidence

    Pre-exhibited

    Evidence thus circumstanced shall it be admitted /received/ or not admitted? - if admitted, on /under/ what conditions? - Such are the practical questions which present themselves as pertaining to this head.

    As /On the question relative/ to its admission, light may be thrown by applying to this subject what has already been presented to view under the head of hearsay evidence.

    Is the author of the pre-exhibited evidence alive or dead; or rather - to take the most expensive ground /embrace the whole of the ground/ - forthcoming or not forthcoming? The propriety of admitting /admission/ evidence of the description in question - and in case of its admission, the weight proper to be given to it, will /may/ be found to stand upon a footing somewhat different according as the answer is affirmative or negative.

    In the case of hearsay evidence, the main ground of objection /obstacle to [...?]/ was - the inapplicability of the docimastic processess in the case of the supposed precipient and extra-judicially narrating witness. In that case the processess inapplicable were - all the docimastic processess without exception: and in particular the coming of the [...?] with its eventual penal consequences: also the whole of the security afforded by the faculty of cross-examination: and from /out of/ the deficiencies arose the characteristic blemish on that species of evidence - viz: the danger of collusion. Yet, notwithstanding all these objections /under all those grounds of suspicion/, the utility of that species of evidence has been established in a variety of cases: and in several of these cases it was shown to be actually admitted of in the practice of English law. In the present case the security afforded by the sanction of an oath has been applied to the lot of pre-exhibited lot of evidence. So likewise that of cross-examination - cross-examination by a party who if though not the same as in the cause in hand, had got any vote (barring collusion) an interest in the refining of the evidence if not exactly the same interest.
  • Title: [26 Sept. 1803 Evidence Instructions]
    Description: 26 Sept. 1803

    Evidence

    Instructions

    Considerations

    Makeshift

    Hearsay

    Second species of Makeshift evidence - Hearsay Evidence contestable, Oral evidence of oral evidence: oral evidence sanctioned scrutinized and cross-examined of oral evidence neither sanctioned, not contestable, sanctioned nor scrutinised nor cross-examined.

    1. In the case of hearsay evidence, against the characteristic fraud, the same precautions /vigilance/ will be requisite on the part of the Judge as in the case of written casual evidence. And moreover to this danger is added that of unintentional incorrectness in the relation /statement/ given by the deposing witness of the discourse supposed to have been uttered in his presence by the supposed percipient witness.

    2. In the case of hearsay evidence of more than one remove the Judge will of course resort at once to the supposed percipient witness the correspondence /the attention of the Judge and through him of the parties/ will of course be directed at once to the supposed percipient witness. Should he be at home and forthcoming, the occasion for applying to any intermediately reporting witness or witnesses will of course cease. Should he be be in foreign parts, every thing that relates to the provisional admission of his evidence and to the purification of it applies to this case in the same manner as to that where between the deposing witness and the supposed percipient witness there is no supposition of any intermediate witness /pen or tongue/.
  • Title: [29 June 1803 Evidence Written]
    Description: 29 June 1803

    Evidence

    Written

    §.3. Rules

    After this indication the subject /way/ seems already prepared for the exhibition of /the reception of/ leading[?] rules: the reasons of which will be unfolded in due course.

    Rule 1. On the single score /ground/ of rectitude of decision - i:e: setting aside the regard due to the prevention of delay vexation and expence[?] - testimony /evidence/ of this kind, being unsanctioned and unscrutinized ought in no case to be admitted, where the witness or supposed witness is forthcoming on a condition /known to be forthcoming at any time,/ to have his testimony sanctioned and scrutinized in whatever is predetermined /has been determined/ to be in his case the proper mode. Reason briefly indicated - 1. Inferior evidence would /not to/ be preferred to superior. 2. Danger from the characteristic fraud.

    Rule 2. In this case of any class of witnesses, supposing there to be any such class, in whose /of which/ instance it is predetermined that their testimony may, without any danger worth regarding on this ground, be admitted, although it be without the security of afforded against mendacity and incorrectness by the generally established system of sanction and scrutiny, such testimony may accordingly be admitted in the first instance, on the ground of a saving in point of delay, vexation and expence: subject always to sanction and scrutiny, in case of reasonable and special cause of suspicion shown in respect either of mendacity or incorrectness. - On this ground is to be justified, so far as it is to be justified, the exemption from sanctionment and scrutiny, established in the case of pre-appointed official evidence. See the Chapter on that subject. Reason briefly indicated - absence of the ordinary causes o mendacity and incorrectness.

    Rule 3. Where it is ascertained[?] that the witness or supposed witness can not at any future time be by any possibility be forthcoming for the purpose of sanctionment and scrutiny - (viz: in the case of death or what to this purpose is tantamount to death incurable insanity to a degree rendering him incapable of examination) this species of evidence ought to be admitted: supposing it not to stand excluded by a degree of disadvantage in respect of probable delay, vexation and expence, more than equivalent to the advantage in respect of rectitude of decision, consideration being had of the degree of its relevancy and importance and subject of course to whatever observations it stands exposed to on the ground of /on the score of/ interest and all other grounds of suspicion. [...?] Briefly indicated. The witness being a party to the suit, Fraud not to be presumed: mendacity not so common as veracity: deception by mendacity, if attempted, more likely to fail than to succeed /prevail/ against the causes of suspicion motivated by the instructions. Absence of expectation of profit to be reaped by the characteristic fraud; the falshood not being capable of producing its advantageous consequences /profit/ till the author is no longer in a condition to reap it /the profit/. The witness [...?] [...?] a party. Uncertainty of the time of reaping the profit from the submission[?]: the disgrace and punishment impending all the time,