8 June 1804

Evidence

Ch Investigatorial

§ 6. Order - Rules

Rule 3 d. The like retrograde proceeding will /investigation may/ in like manner become necessary, if the supposed intermediate witness of the first remove, on being confronted with the supposed immediate witness should deny his having heard from him any such discourse as by the testimony of the first deposing witness he is stated to have heard: by the testimony of the first deposing witness: in this case it will be necessary to convene the /an/ intermediate witness of the 2 d. remove, to confront his testimony with that of the said intermediate witness of the first

N.B. This supposition /case/ of an intermediate witness of the 2 d remove supposes at least four links in a /the/ chain of concatenated evidence. In a chain composed of but three links, the station here supposed to be filled by an intermediate witness of the 2 d remove will be filled /occupied/ by the first deposing witness.

Discovering or endeavouring to discover the supposed percipient or other immediate extrajudicial witness by means of the statement described to him by a deposing witness - whose evidence is hearsay evidence may be termed direct investigation - or investigation in the direct order or course.

Examining backwards Coming back from the supposed percipient, or other immediate or extrajudicial witness, to the supposed intermediate witness, whose supposed extrajudicial testimony stands next to his in the chain, may for distinction's sake be termed retrograde investigation, or investigation in the retrograde order or course.

Retrograde investigation has two uses: 1. to detect, or rather, by checking, to prevent incorrectness or mendacity in the instance of the supposed immediate witness: 2. To perform the like offices in relation to the testimony of the first-deposing hearsay witness. Of these two objects the former is the more important, as exercising the more immediate and improper influence in the event of the individual suit actually in hand.