1
results found in
59 ms
Page 1
of 1
4 July 1812.
Evidence Introd
Introd
Ch. 23. Technically appropriate
'.1.
How great soever in theory that is upon this view of it the mischief may /will/ be, it will still not be a mischief in practice, if under a Jury the conclusion in the case where by the happening /intervention/ of an /this or that/ informative fact it is rendered erroneous could not be made to give way to a just and true one. But this is not the case: for in every instance it will be found /seen/, that as often as /to/ any such informative fact it happens to be realized /have place/, that the Jury should take cognizance of it is altogether natural, and no more than ought with confidence to be expected: whereas to a Judge, without inconsistency and [...?] this is not possible: the rule which in relation to this matter has been laid down and pursued being a rule in which, in the character of an informative fact /of the fact in question/ no account was taken, and of which accordingly by the realization of the informative fact in question, their falsity has been demonstrated.
Throughout the whole extent of the field, but for this mass of suruptitious and usurped law the Jury /[...?] judicatory/ could throughout the whole of the field been /have found itself/ at liberty at lest, to draw right conclusions: whereas by the [...?] which the Judges on such imperfect ground have [...?] down for one another predecessors for successors, they have bound one another, in as far as they are capable of being bound, to pronounce conclusions such as in many instances cannot but prove false.
Similar Items
-
Title: [4 July 1812 Evidence Introd]Description: 4 July 1812 Evidence Introd Introd Ch. 23. Technically appropriate '.1. In this respect different in a considerable degree, it has already been seen is the nature of circumstantial evidence. In the case of this sort of evidence many and extensive are, it has been seen the instances in which one [...?] /[...?]/ sort of fact ground may be seen for inferring the existence or the non existence of another sort of fact. Thus there was a species of evidence the decision of which was not in its own nature absolutely incapable of being taken into the hands of the Judges, accordingly taken with their insatiable /over-grasping/ and ever grasping hands it has been and to a vast and deplorable extent. I say deplorable, and for this reason: viz. that assuredly in most instances, not in improbably in every instance without exception the conclusions thus drawn will in the general character this in every instance has been given to them, rash and untrue conclusions. Why? because the conclusion will in every instance be found liable to be weakened by facts, of the nature of informative facts as above explained, which facts have in the drawing of the inference been overlooked or neglected
-
Title: [4 July 1812 Evidence Introd]Description: 4 July 1812 Evidence Introd Introd Ch. 23. Technically appropriate '.1. Be this as it may, throughout the whole extent of this field, in every case, some /one/ individual fact at least, it will be seen, is considered as proved: say for example on the plaintiff's side: and then the question is - whether, as the law stands, or is supposed to stand, he should be considered as entitled to the service which he is claiming at the hands of the Judge. Stands so, mutatis mutandis if it be on the defendant's side.
-
Title: [3 July 1812 Evidence Introd]Description: 3 July 1812 Evidence Introd Introd Ch. 23. Technically appropriate A question belonging to the head of technically appropriate evidence is a question that could not have existence over the rule of action real not imaginary consigned to a determinate form of words, not left to be /instead of being/ expressed by each person in his own words at a venture
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1