date

12 June 1805 Evidence Note
12 June 1805

Evidence

Note continued

Introd.

Ch. Procedure Natural

''. Confront. Object n to [...?]

Note ( ) to p.2. continued

In proof of the property[?] and unvexatiousness of such personal attendance, were an argument to that effect presented to the English Judge, what answer would he have to make? The class of men to which I have the honour to belong as a class of men who only now and then mean what they say, and to whose word it is [...?] prudent to give evidence. The paper was signed by me[?] it is true, but like so many other papers which I am in the habit of signing like so many other [...?] which I am in the habit of making [...?] by solemn signature it is all /a [...?] of/ a falsehood from beginning to end. The King knew nothing of /about/ the matter: I myself knew as little: were the Defendant to come to me (in Court or out of Court - at that time or at another) I should refuse to hear him: were he not to come he would not suffer the penalty of ,100 or any other [...?] penalty: he would be [...?] and [...?] in an inexplicable[?] variety of other ways. What I mind he should do was to employ an Attorney, but the business might come before me, through the medium of my learned friends, in a regular way; a fact which any man may easily [...?] himself about, where [...?] he has [...?] to understood that my [...?] ends I am sure that fit to be believed. Therefore as the Attorney came instead of Client: act this[?] the Attorney himself were he to attend at the time and place at which I have thus commanded attendance to be paid; would be spoken to or suffered to speak any more than his client.
Similar Items
  • Title: [12 June 1805 Procedure Evidence]
    Description: 12 June 1805

    Procedure Evidence

    Note

    Introd

    Ch. Procedure Natural

    ''. Confront. Object n to [...?]

     Addn Execution[?] of attendance [...?]

    For the purpose by [...?] up /destroying or [...?]/ local judicature

    Note (a) to p.3.

    (a) In England, another answer, in no better character indeed than that of an argumentum ad hominum[?], but in that character an [...?] one /a faulty imperfect one and most appalling one/ /rather an/ might be offered /presented/ /submitted/ to an English Judge. You yourself as often as you had your name, for the purpose of giving commencement to a suit, address yourself by a written notice presented in the name of the King /the name of your King/ to the defendant, calling upon him in as explicit and pointed terms as the language can furnish /has to furnish you/, to appear before you in your Court: to appear not simply to appear (lest that according to the distorted[?] &[?] deceptitious language to which your predecessors have given currence[?] should be construed to mean not to appear but to send by some other person to appear by Attorney) not simply to appear but to appear personally to appear in person: and the better to confer this command you back it with the threat of a specific punishment, a pecuniary penalty to the amount of

    100.
  • Title: [Evidence 29 June 1805 Introd]
    Description: Evidence

    29 June 1805

    Introd

    Ch. un-limitness[?]

    ''. Quid

    I am a father of a family. My son Thomas is with me, I wish to see /want to speak with/ my son John, and do not want to speak with my son William. I give orders accordingly to Thomas, saying /I address myself to Thomas, and say/ to him, go and tell John to come to me. What room is there in this for art or science? Observe how a business of this extreme simplicity has been converted by English Judges into art and Science.

    Suppose /On the same occasion/ an English judge instead of proceeding in his domestic functional capacity came to proceed as he does every day in his official character. Wishing to see John, he would say to Thomas go and tell William to come to me at two o'clock. When William conveys accordingly what does the Judge in consequence? In the first place he refuses to see William; in the next place he punishes him for not commissioning John to come in his stead. In any private house this would be insanity; in Westminster Hall it constitutes art and science. It is a matter of science[?] for the Counsel to know that in this case William means John; it is matter of art for an Attorney to know how to come in proper form when William has been unfortunate enough to be obliged to commission him for that purpose.
  • Title: [18 July 1805 Evidence Note]
    Description: 18 July 1805

    Evidence

    Note?

    Introd. Jurisprudent

    Ch. II. Vices

    ''. ex post facto

    5. "At the Court of Chancery assumes a general jurisdiction in cases not within the bounds or beyond the powers of other jurisdictions." This, four or 8 pages after and in a sort of parenthesis. To any penal purpose /purpose purely penal/, in and by any suit of the purely penal class, unquestionably not true. The learned author it is plain, had not any such case in his mind.

    6. That "it is not a very easy task accurately to describe the jurisdiction of our Courts of Equity." This in a note.

    7. "That" those who have attempted it have generally failed." This in the same note.

    8. That "The apparent necessity of making the attempt for the purpose of elucidating the subject of the following pages" (viz - "the Pleadings in suite in the Court of Chancery" (the busiest of the Courts of Equity) "must be the apology for what is there offered." This also in the same note.

    From the whole tenure of the above information one conclusion may it should seem be drawn with safety /without much danger of error/ viz - that the power of a Court in English Court of Equity has no known limits. [that the learned author knew of now is ascertained by the best evidence: and for as much as he does not, neither does any body else, though but matter of inference, is one inference, the legitimacy of which seems not in much danger of dispute.]

    What does not seem equally clear, is - what this task was, in /in respect of the execution of/ which "those who have attempted it have generally failed," which it was so unnecessary to execute, and which, in contemplation of such failure and such necessity, the learned Author undertook to execute and concerned himself to have executed. Was it, the "describing what has been done and therefore can be done by a Court of Equity? This is what nobody has failed in: this is what every body has done. Were it the describing what can not be done by Court of Equity? This is what the learned Author himself has not so much as attempted.

    Note

    The same cloud /covenant/ which in the region of the King's Bench hangs /has been spread/ over the rule of action and standard of obedience extends to the other great court on the other side the passages[?].