date

5 June 1803 Evidence Best
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.
Similar Items
  • Title: [3 Feb y 1808 First then /First compassion]
    Description: 3 Feb y 1808

    First then /First compassion then -/ as between real and personal. Believe the two species thus distinguished /determined/, the difference is in substance, not between shape and [...?]. Neither [...?] to [...?] comes in competition, or so much as in compassion with neither supersedes[?] - the other. Such may be possessed of /exist in/ almost any degree of persuasive form - from the lowest to the highest: from the lowest at any rate: though without some explanation from personal evidence, the degree of persuasion produced by real evidence alone can perhaps hardly in any case be compleat. Supposing them on one and the same side, you can hardly say /it can hardly be said/ [...?] from knowing that the one is of the real kind, the other of the personal, which is last: if it could nothing practical would follow, because supposing either to be the last, why should the other be rejected? Suppose them one on the one side, the other on the other, still these /come/ the same unimportance[?] with respect to practical inference: still the observation /remark[?]/ holds good - from the [...?] statement that the one is of the real kind, the other of the personal, it is impossible to say with reason which preponderates.

    The object which on that occasion the vies of the Committee did embrace is the removal of the burthen in that particular quarter, and on the quarters the prevailing the encrease of it in other quarters: the object which on that sane occasion these enlightened views did not embrace was the removal of the factitious mass oppression in its extent. What they did point to was that denial of justice should not take place in future to a greater extent than they do at present: what they did not point to was that those evils should be - what with so much care and certainty /so certainly and so easily/ they might be - extirpated altogether.
  • Title: [3 June 1803 Evidence Best]
    Description: 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.
  • Title: [[094-302v] 24 Feb y 1803 Ch]
    Description: [094-302v]

    24 Feb y 1803

    Ch. 13 Best Evidence, what.

    The best evidence is the proper ultimate object of a treatise on evidence in both its parts. To shew by what means the best chance for obtaining the best evidence may be in each instance obtained /how the best evidence is to be obtained/ is the main object of the practical part: to shew what is the best evidence /how the best evidence is to be distinguished - to shew/ what sort of evidence is best - is the main object of the theoretical part.

    The determining what sort of evidence is the best ground is already had. To gather together and bring /apply/ to bear upon this point the few obvious lights that have already presented themselves, is all that remains for this purpose to be done.

    Between evidence and personal evidence there is no choice. What real evidence, if any, the cause furnishes depends upon the nature of the case: partly upon the species of case, partly upon the individual circumstances of the case in each individual instance.

    At any rate whether lights of this kind the case is capable of furnishing in each individual instance, these of course will naturally be collected, if the state of the law does nt forbid it; and happily as such disposition as that of excluding any of those lights /lights of this species/, has commonly manifested itself in the current systems of jurisprudence. Except that where the best evidence is not to be had without travelling far, English Judges (except Jurymen[?]) are not always in every case disposed to [...?] for it, and [...?] are.