date

8 June 1804 Procedure Evidence
8 June 1804

Procedure Evidence

Ch Investigat?

§.6 Order - Rules.

§6. Order of investigation, direct and retrograde, through a chain of hearsay evidence.

Rule 1. In a chain of hearsay evidence, containing a number of intermediate links, consisting of the supposed statements of so many intermediate supposed reporting witnesses, interposed between the deposing and the supposed percipient or other immediate extra-judicial witness, on receiving indication, as above, of the supposed purport on the statement of the supposed percipient or immediate extra-judicial witness, the witness to be resorted to and convinced in the next instance is such supposed immediate witness.

Reason - By the convention and examination of the several intermediate witnesses, so much collateral inconvenience vexation, expense and delay will of course be produced. All which will, in case the supposed percipient or immediate witness has any evidence to give on the subject, be unnecessary and useless.

Rule 2. But if, on being examined, the supposed immediate witness denies all knowledge of the transaction, or gives /yields/ such testimony as is irreconciliable with the statement supposed to have been given in relation to his supposed extra-judicial statement, by the intermediate witness, by whom it is supposed to have been heard, in such case it may be proper and necessary to convene such intermediate witness of the first remove with the /such/ supposed immediate witness, whether for the purpose of contradicting and refuting the supposed immediate witness or assisting and correcting his recollections.

Reason. In this case, this step in the investigation becomes as plainly necessary, as it was seen to be unnecessary in the former case.
Similar Items
  • Title: [8 June 1804 Evidence Ch Investigatorial]
    Description: 8 June 1804

    Evidence

    Ch Investigatorial

    § 6. Order - Rules

    Rule 3 d. The like retrograde proceeding will /investigation may/ in like manner become necessary, if the supposed intermediate witness of the first remove, on being confronted with the supposed immediate witness should deny his having heard from him any such discourse as by the testimony of the first deposing witness he is stated to have heard: by the testimony of the first deposing witness: in this case it will be necessary to convene the /an/ intermediate witness of the 2 d. remove, to confront his testimony with that of the said intermediate witness of the first

    N.B. This supposition /case/ of an intermediate witness of the 2 d remove supposes at least four links in a /the/ chain of concatenated evidence. In a chain composed of but three links, the station here supposed to be filled by an intermediate witness of the 2 d remove will be filled /occupied/ by the first deposing witness.

    Discovering or endeavouring to discover the supposed percipient or other immediate extrajudicial witness by means of the statement described to him by a deposing witness - whose evidence is hearsay evidence may be termed direct investigation - or investigation in the direct order or course.

    Examining backwards Coming back from the supposed percipient, or other immediate or extrajudicial witness, to the supposed intermediate witness, whose supposed extrajudicial testimony stands next to his in the chain, may for distinction's sake be termed retrograde investigation, or investigation in the retrograde order or course.

    Retrograde investigation has two uses: 1. to detect, or rather, by checking, to prevent incorrectness or mendacity in the instance of the supposed immediate witness: 2. To perform the like offices in relation to the testimony of the first-deposing hearsay witness. Of these two objects the former is the more important, as exercising the more immediate and improper influence in the event of the individual suit actually in hand.
  • Title: [5 June 1803 Evidence Instructions]
    Description: 5 June 1803

    Evidence

    Instructions

    Best

    II. Substance

    1. First-hand with Hearsay

    e. contained[?]

    Where the case affords first hand evidence, the legislator, if he thinks fir, may permit or order it to be converted into hearsay evidence. But it will often happen that a lot of evidence- a statement or narrative is not to be had in any other shape than that of hearsay evidence: the percipient witness not being forthcoming. In these cases it does not depend upon the legislator to have it converted into first-hand evidence. He must have /take//admit/ it in this its derivative shape, or not have it at all /exclude it altogether/.

    On another ground - an additional and perfectly distinct and additional ground the superiority /inferiority/ of hearsay /first hand/ evidence in comparison of first hand /hearsay/ evidence has already been established. In all these hearsay evidence in respect of the supposed original - the essential and vital part of it, it is compleatly and necessarily unscrutinized. In Hearsay /It is of the essence of/ evidence contains /to contain/two essentially distinct narratives or statements of the same fact or supposed fact: the one a narrative or statement [...?] given; - the deposition given by the deposing witness:- the other a narrative or statement said by him to been given: - the narrative or statement said to have been given at the prior point of time in question in the other place by the alledged percipient or intermediate witness. The narrative or statement given by the deposing witness may be scrutinized or unscrutinized: if scrutinized, more or less compleatly scrutinized, but the supposed narrative or statement alledged by the deposing witness to have been given by the supposed extra-judicial witness, whether percipient or intermediate can never be subjected to any the slightest degree of scrutiny.
  • 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/.