date

24 April 1808 Reasons for the Work
24 April 1808

Reasons for the Work

6. The designation which is the instrument of demand is given of the service demanded, and if the efficient cause of the right to such service being thus imperfect, thus incorrect, incompleat, and fallacious, the designation which, in the instrument of defence is given of the nature of the defence, is, as naturally it would be, at least equally so.

Suits vastly more in number are carried on by the mode of pleading called general pleas, than by the mode called special. But to meet all the diversifications incident to the nature and grounds of the instrument of demand, followed by all the diversifications incident to the nature and grounds of the defence, the whole stock of established formularies afford no more than five or six different instruments of defence, under the name of General Issues, and of these not more than │ │ are much in ordinary use.

7. In the construction of his instruments of demand, among the points of caution observed by a draughtsman, duly attentive to what is at the same time really useful and practicable in the way of precision, will be that of any such mode or degree of precision and determinateness (of certainty to use the technical word) as the nature of the case does not admitt of.

In the English system, the erroneous assumption of the necessity of a degree of determinateness which not being practicable can not be necessary, has been productive of a mass of falshood and absurdity the enormity of which, as might naturally be expected, seems but to have endeared it the more respectable in the eyes of professors {those whose profit and scientific reputation are attached to it}.

Many are the instances in which antecedently to the examination of the evidence it will be impossible to say with any sufficient assurance in which of a multitude of ways, sometimes as far as half a dozen or more, an event took place. As often as this is the case, truth and common sense require that the fact should be stated in the disjunctive mode of statement. Falshood and Common law have in cases of this description, preferred the cumulative mode of statement, giving to the case such a mode of designation as gives to understand either that a fact which (though it might have happened in any one of all those ways could not have happened in more than one) happened in each and every one, or that half a dozen such facts took place when in truth there was but one (a). In Mr Leach, Crown Cases may be seen as instances where as an instrument of demand in private (an indictment of murder, an allegation intimating that the same man was killed twice over received the sanction of the Judges.

( ) Non assumpsit, Not[?] Guilty, Nil debit.
Similar Items
  • Title: [28 April 1808 §.4. I. Reasons]
    Description: 28 April 1808

    §.4.

    I. Reasons for the Work

    §.4. Demand the sole instrument

    3. True it is, that forasmuch as it may happen to the effect of the collative incident or state of things of which the positive part of the demandants efficient cause of right is composed, to be defeated by the existence of some ablative event, so may it to the effect of such ablative incident or state of things, to be defeated by some other incident or state of things, the effect of which on that account may with relation to the collative or investitive incident in question be termed re-investitive: and so on indefinitely, through a chain of opposite and alternating incidents of any length.

    4. But of such reinvestitive incident the possible existence, as it might be, so it ought to be, foreseen and provided for in and by the instrument of demand, and the designation of it subjoined to the designation of the ablative incident to which it applies: the ablative incident (it may be said) has not had place unless accompanied or followed by the reinvestive incident by which the ablative effect of it is destroyed.

    5. In fact, whether in the case supposed, any separate mention need be made of any distant incident in the character of a re-investitive incident, will frequently depend upon the structure of the language, and upon the words employed accordingly for the designation of the collative incident, so that according to the mode of designation pursued, the re-investitive incident may either be brought forward in the first instance, or kept back till the ablative incident makes its appearance, and then subjoined to it, and as it were placed behind it.
  • Title: [28 April 1808 §.4. I. Reasons]
    Description: 28 April 1808

    §.4.

    I. Reasons for the Work

    §.4. demand the sole instrument

    §.4. The instrument of demand is the only one that requires details: of the instrument of defence the substance being contained in the instrument of demand: and no ulterior instruments necessary.

    1. If, in the instrument of demand, be contained, as they might be and ought to be, all possible official causes of defence - i.e. all that the law admitts of, there remains nothing more for the defendant than to affirm the existence of some one or more of the efficient causes of defence (events or states of things having an ablative effect with relation to the demandant's supposed right) the existence of which has been disaffirmed in and by the instrument of demand. But by being disaffirmed, they have already been designated. Thus whatsoever matter is capable of being inserted with propriety into the instrument of defence, is already contained in the instrument of demand: with no other difference than what algebraists would call that of the sign: the sign being in the instrument of demand, negative; in the instrument of defence, positive.

    {And so vice versâ. For the defence may consist either in the affirmance of an ablative incident disaffirmed by the demandant, or in the disaffirmance of the collative incident affirmed by him.}

    2. This being the case, all use and place for any ulterior instrument of allegation may be seen to stand excluded. For when the instrument of defence has been produced, a proposition or a string of propositions has been brought to view, as being the subject of unqualified affirmance on the one part, of unqualified disaffirmance on the other: i.e. (to use a phrase which, though bred in the technical part, has become current in the main body of the language -) the parties are already at issue.
  • Title: [30 April 1808 J.B. to H of Commons]
    Description: 30 April 1808

    J.B. to H of Commons

    I. Reasons for the Work

    §. English pleadings inapplicable to Scotland

    11. In the designation of the ground of demand, the efficient cause of the right demanded, and feint[?] of the positive branch of that cause, viz. the collative incident, the practice is scarcely less definitive than in any of the abovementioned cases.

    12. I. Is it an individual thing of the class of moveables that the plaintiff demands of you? a horse for example, or a saddle? What in no case he informs you of, is by what title he expects to prove it to have become his. What in every case he is forced to aver is that the horse, or the saddle, which he demands of you, was some where or other found by you, an assertion which in 99 cases out of a hundred is not true. {Not that if the horse or the saddle is his you will be obliged to give it him. What you will give him is the horse or the money it has been valued at by twelve men who have never seen it. But of this mention has been [made] under a the preceding head.}

    13. II. Is it a thing immoveable that is demanded of you? Still the same silence with regard to the title. No, not absolute silence: for a story is told about somebody that was turned out by somebody: of the parties one at least, viz. the plff., is always fictitious: and the fact of turning out is almost always so: besides being nothing to the purpose. With respect to what is called the title, certainty is indeed required: but this title is the fictitious one: what is meant by certainty is a circumstantial statement of a fact that never happened.

    14. IV. In respect of the title to service and to money due (I speak still of the positive part of the title) the information given is not always so compleatly consultative[?]/uns[b]stantive[?] as in those two other cases. In one shape or other however it is replete with falshoods: which, if the plaintiff's lawyer were to omitt, the client would lose the cause; instead of the one sum due, half a dozen such sums, each to the same amount for example, alledged to be there: each by a different title.