date

15 May 1806 Evidence Jurisprudential
15 May 1806

Evidence

Jurisprudential

Ch. II. Vices

2. 1 Arbitrary

Per L. Mansfield in Jones v Randel. Cowp. 39.

"It is argued and rightly, that notwithstanding it is not prohibited /(over a wager the sort of wager in question) by any positive law, nor ajudged/ illegal by any precedents, yet it may be decided to be so upon principles; and the law of England would be a strange science indeed if it were decided upon precedents only. Precedents seems to illustrate principles, and to give them a fixed certainty. But the law of England, which is exclusive of positive law, enacted by statute, depends upon principles: and these principles run through all the particular cases according as particular circumstances of each have been found to fall within the one or other of them."

The question then is, whether the wager is against principles? if it be contrary to any, it must be contrary either to principles of morality; for the law of England prohibits every thing which is contra bonos mores, Or it must be against principles of sound policy; for many contracts which are not against morality, are still void as being against the maxims of sound policy."

Conceive a Bill, introduced in those terms for Whoever does any act /which in the opinion of the Court of Kings Bench/ contrary to morality or contra bonos mores shall be punished by force to any amount of imprisonment for any length of time that the said court deem proper.

''.2. Whoever does any act that in the opinion of the said court is contrary to sound policy, shall be punished as aforesaid.

''.3. Every contract contrary to sound policy, is hereby declared to be void.

Conceive a Bill couched in any such terms introduced by the administration into either House of Parliament - what would the opposition, what would the House say to it?

Conceive, if the supposition be not too odious to be rendered for a moment even in the character of a supposition - conceive a Bill in any such terms, or to any such vague effect, passed acts[?] law: what would the public say to it?

Such was the sort of law made by lord Mansfield: such the course taken by /way he took/ him to make it: and certainly - but too certainly - in making law in that way /time/ he was not without warrant either from "precedents" or "principles".
Similar Items
  • Title: [21 July 1805 Evidence Introd]
    Description: 21 July 1805

    Evidence

    Introd. Jurisprudent

    Equity Jurisdiction

    In the Courts of Common Law the business of procedure is carried on upon one plan. In the Courts of Equity the business of procedure is carried on upon another plan as different from the other as any that can be conceived. Two plans here different for the accomplishment of the same object may be both wrong; and if to run counter to every end of justice is to be wrong are both wrong, but they can not both be right.

    Not only did they travel /wish/ in use the execution of the same work /sort of business/ upon discordant and repugnant principles, but among the occupations of one of these sort of Courts is that of stopping and undoing the work of another /the other/. [When Penelope unravelled by night the web she had been compelled to weave by day, it was for the declared proposed purpose of impeding the work and not of forwarding it.] It To do this and that and other is contrary to equity and good conscience. So says /saeth/ the suitor in Equity to the Court of Equity. It is so it is indeed contrary to equity and good conscience, says the Court to the Plff in effect, as often as upon the ground /strength of the [...?]/ then made by the Plff it acceeds to his demand. Contrary to equity and good conscious? to do what? To do that very thing which the Courts of Common Law are constantly employed /occupied/ in doing, because the not doing it would be contrary to justice.

    My property /land is withholden/ is taken from me. I apply for redress to the only Court /Court which in this case in question prefers to give in [...?]/ to which I can apply for it, a court of common law. When the Common Law storehouse of factitious expense, vexation and delay has been exhausted, and the time is come when it is no longer possible for the Common Law Court to forbear rendering a justice, I am dragged into a court of Equity, in which the process of factitious expense, vexation and delay recommences with improvements: to a Court of Equity, in /by/ which my demand is decided upon on principles disregarded by the Court of Common Law; the facts being also decided upon by evidence not there admissible and obtained by a mode of enquiry altogether different.
  • Title: [15 May 1806 Evidence Jurisprudential]
    Description: 15 May 1806

    Evidence

    Jurisprudential

    Observe then, that though in the making of the decision each puisne Judge bears and equal part with the chief, yet except in here and there a rare case in which the judgement of the Court is delivered by a puisne judge what is said is said by the Chief: the others may all or any of them oppose /protest against/ it as they please: but any such protestation or precedent is scarcely to be found. Though the decision /what there is of judication/ must be acknowledged to be the act of the whole court, yet the acts of legislators passed upon the occasion of the judicature, are each of them the acts of a high Judge: most commonly of the Chief: but at any rate of one single Judge. The chief has in this way made a law: this law is not altogether to the mind of this or that one of the puisnes? It knows better than to make any formal proposition or protestation against it: no: he lets that law /to send the matter, if in his opinion the matter send [...?]/ pass, and he makes another such law of his own. Decisions, acts of judicature are put to the vote: dicta, that is to say laws, such as we have been seeing are never put to the vote. Trifles such as this, little less than a compleat code of criminal law composed in six words contrary to morality or sound policy are not put to the vote: de minimis lex non curat. What is the consequence? Is the dictum of the Chief the only one /dictum [...?]/? pure unbounded despotism: is it followed by other dictums from other parts of the same bench? Despotism with contradiction and uncertainty to sully it.

    Let us confine ourselves /our view/ to the chief: in this sort of vice[?] his visit is unquestionably the most fruitful /[...?]/ /fruitful/. What under such law must a man do to be saved. He must know, know as /in relation/ to every part of his conduct, know in relation to every thing /end/ which he can propose to himself to do or not to do, know all his life being /throughout the whole course/ of his life, what the opinion is of a man who knows not what it has himself: he must confine himself to a will which it is not so much s permitted to him to act to know.
  • Title: [22 Aug t 1808 Evidence Issue]
    Description: 22 Aug t 1808

    Evidence

    Issue in Equity

    1. Equity judges when they try a cause upon proper evidence, which is not once in twenty times, direct an assize[?], in which case the question is tried before a jury, upon jury evidence p.1.

    2. Useless fiction employed for this purpose - party forced to tell a lying story about a wager. p.1.

    3. Impropriety of this device - It assumes that on condition of laying a wager any two persons have a right to the service of the church to compell every body to disclose to them whatever facts they choose to enquire about - a proposition expressly negatived by a decision of B.R. temp. Mansfield. p.2

    1 - Apparent incongruity in combating by Reason what was not established by reason: but for combating prejudice, reason if not always an effectual weapon is the only one. p.1-