074_325.xml

Title: [31 Mar. 1804 Evidence Forthcomingness]

Description: 31 Mar. 1804

Evidence

Forthcomingness

Ch. Investigatorial

§.7. Course

2. As to the mode of securing the delivery of the interrogative letter, and what is equally necessary, sufficient evidence of its having[?] made - as also of the letter of information in return.

1. By variety of marks - the letter press serving as a border to that part of the paper in which the manuscript part is entered[?] - together with an appropriate stamp on the outside, letters of this description are effectively distinguished /discriminated/ from all ordinary letters. 2 of each such letter the direction including the date is copied at the post office of the place /town/ from which it is sent to the abode of the witness addressed. In a /another/ correspondent column another entry is made mentioning the person by whom, together with the month, day and hour when delivered, and to whom delivered, or by what other means and in which other manner introduced into the house or other place of the witnesses residence at that time. Another copy, with a memorandum of the day when thus consigned to the post, is entered on /in/ a book kept for the purpose by an officer of the Court.

When the answer comes to be transmitted, the like entries are made at the post house to which it is delivered. The answer is directed to the proper /Judge or subordinate/ officer of the Court - by whose care the letter of interrogation was consigned to the post. The answer should be entered in the same paper in which the question is [...?]: for the satisfaction of the witness that he may know at all times the nature and extent of the obligation he has incurred, it ought not be [...?] to send to him two copies at once: one for him to return with his answer, the other for him to keep by him, with the transcript of his answer: - a transcript which it may be recommended to him to take.

074_322.xml

Title: [March 1804 Evidence Forthcomingness]

Description: March 1804

Evidence

Forthcomingness

Ch. Investigatorial

§.7. Course.

whole prejudice from the falshood falls exclusively upon the head of the interrogator, the plaintiff: as to the Def t, so far as he is served the better from the vexation, expense and delay that falls upon the head of his adversary, far from being prejudiced by the falsity, is served by it. If true, whatever prejudice it may be productive of to the defendant, it is not in the nature of it to be productive of any injury to him. To the plaintiff it can not be of any possible use, any further than as it is true. Of what possible use could any cross-examination be, performed by the defendant in this case be productive? To facilitate the extraction of the evidence? To produce this effect is the object of the primary examination - the object of the plaintiff. To obstruct - to prevent the extraction of the evidence /information/? It is not likely to produce /that I should/ produce this effect by any means: it is not possible for it to produce this effect by fair means. /is not likely: that it should produce it by fair means is not possible/.

Suppose the interrogation to be of the suggestive kind, be it ever so plainly suggestive, no possible injustice can ensue. Suppose it accordingly to run thus - did you ever hear Titus[?] speak of his having been present at the transaction in question. In the most ordinary state of things the question will not wear this suggested form, because in the ordinary state of things it supposes the interrogator to be already in possession of the information asked for; and then the person naturally addressed would not be any person in the character of an indicative witness, but the person / Titius himself/, supposed to be qualified to serve in the character of an ultimate witness. By accident however, the information /degree/ requisite to enable the interrogator to give this interrogative form to his question may have been obtained, and yet it may be more convenient to apply to the other individual the character of an indicative witness, than to apply in the first instance to Titius: as for instance, if the abode of the indicative witness be but at a distance of one days journey, and Titus be at the time in question distant by the amount of a six weeks voyage.

149_163.xml

Title: [nd [wm 1794] Inserenda Observations]

Description: nd [wm 1794]

Inserenda

Observations

VI. Miscellanea

§. 45

Anonymous

7

witness that he can be either convicted put upon his trial arrested or called to account in any shape: – if he is guilty, it is much more favourable to him than it would be if the informant declared himself, because in that case conviction, as above mentioned, might take place at once, without either the trouble of looking out for further evidence, or the danger of not getting it. In what way could anonymous information be more prejudicial to him than information from a person known, or so much as equally prejudicial? No Magistrate, no Board, no Jury ever yet convicted upon such evidence as the bare allegation of an unknown informant, or of any number of unknown informants: – to ground a conviction, there must be evidence given by an individual known, examined in person, upon oath and in presence of the party charged. So sure as a Magistrate presumed presumed to convict without the concurrence of any of these requisites ( confession, which supersedes them all being here out of the question) so thereby would he himself be convicted and punished on application to the Court of King’s Bench. In every point of view it is so much the better for the party whose supposed practices or designs form the subject matter of the information, that the informant should be unknown. If the informant were known, conviction and punishment would be the probable consequence. But so long as the informant is unknown, conviction without some other evidence is impossible, and the worst that can happen to a plotter is the frustration of his plot.