date

Evidence 6 July 1805 Introd
Evidence

6 July 1805

Introd

Ch. Perversion

By technically-perverted language I understand such language as being in an active sense in common use among the people is taken in hand by lawyers and employed by them with a sense annexed to it different from any which at the time in question, is commonly annexed to it by the body of the people /in common use with the body of the people/. There is ambiguity: and the /fraud is the [...?] in the existence of it/ creation of it is the work of fraud. In every such case there is ambiguity, every such case there is deceit /fraud/.

In the case of perverted language two modes of perversion require to be distinguished.

1. In the one case the person by whom the perverted language is employed is of the body of the people. The man of law - the Judge, taking up /in hand/ this language, ascribes to it an import which not being annexed to those same words in ordinary usage, was to his own conviction not meant to be annexed to it by him who used it. Of this species of perversion the nature and effect is most conspicuous in the case of instruments of contract: such as Wills, Conveyances, and Agreements.

Take particular[?] for example the case of a Will. Testator makes a will, by the terms of which taken together, to the full understanding of the Judge himself, he thought to have bequeathed an article to Ortho[?]. Seeing this, the judge adjudges it to Pscredo[?]. On pretence /On what pretence/ that those same words have a different meaning, in virtue of which had it been the meaning of Testator, it would have been bequeathed to Pscredo. A meaning? but in whose mind? By the supposition, not in the mind of the person in question - Testator: by whom the power which the man of law had professed to have put into his hands is exercised: but a secret meaning annexed or pretended to be /have been/ annexed to those same words by a different person /by a [...?] of [...?] reservation/ set of persons: or set of lawyers. In this way it is evident, that the Judge, in pretence of carrying into effect the will of the testator, makes a false will for him, and it is this false will alone that he carries into effect.
Similar Items
  • Title: [Evidence 23 July 1805 Introd]
    Description: Evidence

    23 July 1805

    Introd.

    Ch. Perversion

    2. Second mode of perversion. In this second mode the language perverted by the man of law is the language that issues out of his own lips. He says one thing, he means a different thing. The meaning annexed to these words by himself he keeps to himself: he keeps it to himself, lest the suitor, understanding what] His plan is, that the suitor, in pretence of disobedience or non-compliance with rules shall, to the profit of the Judge and his confederates, be punished or otherwise vexed. To give the appearance of a warrant for the punishment, the first /one/ thing necessary /needful/ is to generate the offence. For this purpose it is that the Judge annexes in secret a false meaning to his own words. He commands the suitor to do /perform/ a certain act: the act so commanded to the suitor is performed and /whereupon/ the suitor is punished or otherwise vexed. Punished? and for what? - for not having performed another act that never was commanded. The act for the non-performance of which the suitor is then punished is an act which was never communicated to him: an act which it was the case of the Judge should not be communicated to him. The meaning of the Judge of the Judge was to be believed, was that the act for the one performance of which the suitor is punished by him should have been performed by him. But had this meaning been communicated to the suitor the acts in question might have been performed by him; whereby the plan for /of/ punishing him as for the one performance of it would have been disappointed. Thus pretended insanity - it was therefore necessary should be kept a secret from the suitor; and to keep this secret, inexpedient than which willing could be more effectual was employed; a set of words are employed, which according to the meaning annexed to them by all mankind (men of [...?] excepted) signified quite a different sort of act, and act such as would not to any body have presented the idea of the act in question, for the non-performance of which the suitor is punished or otherwise vexed and at any rate plundered.
  • Title: [27 Apr. 1805 Evidence Ch.1]
    Description: 27 Apr. 1805

    Evidence

    Ch.1. Ends

    '.3. Procedure branches

    Particular Ends.

    3. Besides the horse, Testator bequeathed to you a certain share - a fourth part - of the value of his effects not specifically disposed of as the horse was disposed of, directing the aggregate mass of such effects to be sold for the purpose, and the produce so divided. Here comes the mass of services due by Fiduciarius to various persons, yourself being one. On the part of Fiduciarius no reluctance as to the rendering to any one of the persons having right, the services which are his due. But intermixed with the articles which beyond doubt formed so many component parts of the estate of Testator, are some in relation to which Fiduciarius entertains various doubts: - whether they really belonged or not to the estate - which is the properest[?] time for the offering them to sale - which the properest mode. On these several points, It is desirous, partly for the sake of prudential advice partly for the sake of legal authority and security, to have the benefit of a decision from the Judge. In this we see a case in which a like service a service of collation is due to you from the Judge not as before in default of Fiduciarius, but with his consent and his voluntary /not involuntary/ concurrence, though at the instance of some one else.
  • Title: [6 Oct. 1814 Section 1 '.2 Logic or]
    Description: 6 Oct. 1814 Section 1 '.2

    Logic or Language

    Ch. Qualities

    Rules

    1. Terms

    1

    1

    Rules for the avoidance of ambiguity, obscurity, and debility, so far as depends upon the choice of words taken singly.

    I. When the language affords a word appropriated exclusively to the expression of the import which alone it is your intention to express, avoid employing any word which is alike applicable to the expressing of that import, and a different one which may require to be distinguished from it.

    Substantives - adjectives - adverbs - in the instance of all these parts of speech, frequent breaches of this rule may be found.

    I. Substantives.

    1. The word taste

    employed instead of the word relish. To

    relish a thing is to taste it with pleasure. Do you relish this peach ? In this question there is no ambiguity, not even for a moment. But instead of this, oftentimes defined - Do you taste this peach ? and so in the case of almost any other source of pleasure; for example, a poem, a sonata, a building, a landscape.

    In the French language there exists no appropriate word by which pleasure is represented as an accompaniment of the perception indicated; no word expressive of, I taste with pleasure. Gouter is to taste; and for, to relish, there is again this word and no other. In French, therefore, this imperfection, this ambiguity and inadequacy, this incompleteness, and consequent incorrectness of expression, is the result of necessity. In the word taste, when employed instead of the word relish, this imperfection is needlessly and inelegantly copied. Why ? Answer - from affectation and vain glory, to give the hearer or reader to understand that the speaker or writer is so well acquainted with that foreign language, that it is more readily present to his memory than his own language.

    94