1
results found in
19 ms
Page 1
of 1
20 Jan y 1814
Jug. True
Ch.3. Natural Evidence
5
(3)
Admitting this though it be rather too much to admitt that by the consideration of this exposure to temptation a sufficient reason was afforded for trusting to the unofficial in preference to the official witnesses, still this was no sufficient reason, nor any reason at all, for putting a compleat exclusion upon the official class of witnesses: a compleat exclusion for acting as if the weight of both masses of testimony conjoined would have been less than that of one of them had it stood singly.
But even granting how unreasonably soever that in respect of the class of witnesses the testimony of the one set chosen is better than would have been the testimony of that same class of witnesses added to that of the other, still the objection from the absence of the abovementioned securities for correctness and compleatness remains unanswered and conclusive are in no instance either time or place individualized in as far as instances the list of principal witnesses determinate and compleat and at the same time the narrative in which they are spoken of as such, known to have been made public in their lifetime: much less are they, in the tenor of it, spoken of in the character of attesting, and mutually corroborating witnesses.
Add mention of the case taken in modern times to give to every narrative as far as possible the benefit of these securities.
Similar Items
-
Title: [21 Jan y 1814 C? Jug. Util [...?]]Description: 21 Jan y 1814 C? Jug. Util [...?] Inferendum? Ch.3. Natural Evidence 3 (1) Ch. or §. Untrustworthiness of the Natural branch of the probative Evidence, in respect of the Shapes in which it (now) presents itself (to us). In the present state of society by those who with any expectation of permanent success having narratives to deliver, call upon the public for credence certain precautions are constantly observed. 1. Time and place individualized. 2. Percipient witnesses particularized. 3. Of as many of them as may be, the [...?] in token of attestation, obtained. 4. As well as the character of percipient and deposing witnesses as in the character of persons committing to writing or having delivered and attesting the authenticity of those same depositions, the sort of persons regarded as most trustworthy and most effectually made known as such MS alt. illegible. whether by official or any other situation, taken and employed in preference. Explain a little further these 4 heads or some of them?
-
Title: [[094-298v] 21 July 1803 Evidence]Description: [094-298v] 21 July 1803 Evidence Pre-appointed III Judge[?] The intervention of the pre-appointed attesting witnesses mentioned[?] as such upon the face of the deed, ought it to be considered as putting an exclusion upon the testimony of all or any other witnesses? - No; most certainly. To put such an exclusion would be to render the validity of the contract compleatly dependant upon the pleasure of the individuals whose testimony had been thus employed. They might rescind it by perjury: without any such guilt or danger, they might rescind it by simply keeping out of the way. Supporting two attesting witnesses, both alive, and both forthcoming /amenable/, is it necessary that both of them should be warranted. Not according to English law which [...?] chief in general with one[?] witness. Distance may render the examination of them both, if performed viva voci[?] a matter of unnecessary expence. But the objection will have been removed, if one of the parties declares himself upon oath not satisfied with the deposition[?] of one alone of the two witnesses, especially if he offers to defray the expence in the first instance.
-
Title: [7 Aug 1815 * A + Jug True]Description: 7 Aug 1815 * A + Jug True Ch. Imperfection §. Marks of Verity 1. From Individualization (1) To the trustworthiness of any narrative a determinate and correct indication given of time at which in each instance the alledged events or state of things in question is represented as having place, is an essential requisite. Why? Because if this is not required of a man, his narrative or statement may from beginning to end be a topic of falsehood, and yet no means of proving it so be furnished by it. On the other hand, let the time be fixt in this case, if there be more or less of falshood in the narrative if not a source of detection at any rate a ground of suspicion will naturally be furnished by it. The existence of the falsity reported (in question) will naturally be incompatible and so seems to be with the existence of some other event or state of things: which has been rendered either practically certain or more or less probable by other evidence more or less trustworthy. In some cases the effect of the disproof will amount practically speaking to be conclusive: as where the event or state of things is incompatible with the relative state of the earth and the other celestial bodies of the known world as established by astronomical observation and calculations. In this case is the story of the star by which the wise men of the East were conducted from their own country to the stable at Bethlehem where Jesus for a few days after his birth is represented as having been kept. 1 Requisites to trustworthiness in a narrative: 1. Indication of the [...?] time. Individualization in respect of time. Reason: But for this falshood may be universal, yet no manner of detecting it. 2 [...?] contra, if the time be compleatly individualized, then if not a source of detection, a ground of suspicion will naturally be furnished by it. Of the falsely reported event or state of things the existence will be and be seen to be incompatible with d o, if some others provable by more trustworthy evidence. 3 In some cases the disproof will be conclusive: viz where the falsified fact is incompatible with the state of the heavens at that time. 4 [...?] [...?] Star [...?] [...?][...?] [...?].
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1