date

3 June 1803 Evidence Best
3 June 1803

Evidence

Best

2 Written with oral.

And is the procedure of the Romano-Gallic system so compleatly absurd then as it here stands represented? - Not exactly so: not near /quite/ so absurd in substance as in appearance. The written /sort of/ evidence here in view is in many /most/ cases /under the name of written evidence/ pre-appointed, and in some even official evidence: and that it should be /is/in the nature of pre-appointed evidence in general, and more particularly official evidence to command a more uniform degree of confidence, to generate a more uniform degree of persuasion than casual evidence, has been already estimated, and will be more particularly apparent in its place.

Where then lies the true comparison? where the real distinction not between written evidence and unwritten, but between preappointed evidence and casual: for though both should be written, or both for ever unwritten, the ground of preference will be the same.

Thus it is that a vitious arrangement, expressed and either begotten or followed by a vitious nomenclature is capable of putting out the light of day, and establishing the reign of chaos upon earth for a thousand years!

2. Barring criminal falsification, written evidence being paramount expresses itself, as itself, at all times. Of Oral the identity vanishes as soon as it is exhibited /Oral - no sooner is it exhibited, than the identity of it is gone/. The next moment it is or rather what professes to be it is, no longer original evidence, but unoriginal hearsay evidence. Its identity is still precarious /questionable/, though when exhibited a second time, it is exhibited by the same mouth. 3. Written evidence - evidence by permanent signs - may pass through a hundred hands, each taking a transcript of it - each successive transcript taken not from the original or any anterior transcript but from the last preceding it - it might in this way pass through a hundred hands, and still be in substance - nay[?] even in words - be exactly the same evidence. What would have become of a piece of oral evidence of the same tenor, after it had passed in this same way each time at the distance of a few days, or though it were but a few hours or minutes, through a hundred mouths?

Suppose in both cases the piece of evidence in question, oral in one case written in the other to be exhibited /brought into existence/ on any occasion but a judicial occasion - in any place but a court of justice. On this supposition the oral evidence whenever the substance or alledged substance of it comes to be exhibited in a court of Justice, can not exhibit itself but through the medium of another mouth, or at least a separate narrative from the same mouth, and therefore in the first case stands upon a footing no wise different and in the other case but little different from that of subsequent hearsay evidence.
Similar Items
  • 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: [5 June 1803 Evidence Best]
    Description: 5 June 1803

    Evidence

    Best

    II. - Substance

    2. Preappointed with Casual

    3 - Official with Unofficial

    2 & 3. Comparison the second and third: comparison between pre-appointed evidence and /with/ casual.

    Here as in some of the preceding cases, the superiority is written upon the face of the very terms themselves. Pre-appointed evidence is picked evidence: casual evidence is evidence taken as it comes. In what cases this species /modification/ of best evidence is to be had, and what are the precautions necessary to be observed in calling for it, are questions which will form the matter of a separate chapter.

    3. Comparison the third: official with unofficial preappointed evidence Subordinate to the distinction /division/ between pre-appointed and casual evidence, is that which applies to pre-appointed - the distinction between official and unofficial evidence.

    Here also the superiority at least in all ordinary cases is written in characters not unconspicuous. Unofficial pre-appointed evidence is evidence picked by individual parties, or perhaps by only one of two contending parties: official evidence is evidence picked by the legislator, and under him by the Administrator or even by the Judge. But of this further under the head of Official evidence.
  • Title: [5 June 1803 Evidence Best]
    Description: 5 June 1803

    Evidence

    Best

    II - Substance

    4. Real with Personal

    5. Fifth comparison - comparison between real /personal/ evidence and personal /real/. From a comparison between these two species of evidence thus disparate little practical use can be derived. They can never com in competition with each other; and it is seldom that either can supersede the other. Supposing them on opposite sides, from the observation /mere statement/ that on the one side the evidence is of the real kind, on the other side, of the personal kind, it is impossible to say with reason which preponderates. Real evidence without personal is scarcely susceptible of being so compleatly satisfactory as personal is without real: or indeed of being significantly satisfactory to afford a reasonable ground for decision of itself. [...?] being assumed, for the purpose of persuasion personal evidence, may by the number of the witnesses be strengthened by the number of the members to such a degree as to render real evidence superfluous: but /whereas/ in some cases (for example in cases of disputes concerning boundaries) the matter of fact in question is not capable of being so much as conceived without the help of real evidence. If for this purpose the evidence be viewed by other eyes than those of th Judge, as is very /most/ commonly the case - at least in English judicature it is a sort of real evidence at second-hand - a sort of composite evidence - supposed real evidence exhibited /exhibiting itself/ through the medium of personal evidence.

    Suppose evidence of both these descriptions obtainable /forthcoming/ on one and the same side, it is impossible to say /conclude/, from the mere contemplation of the specific difference, that either is superfluous: in this or that particular /individual/ case, it may happen that the body of real evidence which the case affords which may be rendered superfluous by the body of personal evidence: but so may any one part of the body of personal evidence by the rest.

    Note

    ( ) The case is otherwise as will be seen, as between Hearsay oral evidence and original and original /direct/ oral evidence: as likewise as between transcriptions written evidence, and the original from whence it was transcribed.