4 July 1812

Evidence Introd

Introd

Ch. 23. Technically appropriate

'.1.

Thus if it be not /where it has not been/ upon the point /matter/ of law, it is upon the effect of some acknowledged fact in the character of an evidentiary fact with relation /regard/ to some assignable fact in the character of a principal fact in a /and this/ word in the character of an article of circumstantial evidence that the question has turned on the occasion of every decision of which under the head /part//division/ in question mention has been made will be found manifest by /appear plain enough it is supposed to/ every lawyer by whom the contents of it are looked over in this view.

The cause of this distinction will also it is supposed be sufficiently apparent: of this distinction that is of those reasons a not entering upon them to pronounce on /say what ought be/ the effect of /in which of/ direct evidence, coupled with their obtrusion /intrusion/ in taking upon them to say what ought to be and thence what shall be the effect of an article of circumstantial evidence.

To say what ought to be to the effect of an article of direct evidence - of the testimony of a witness would be to decide upon the probative force of the evidence delivered by that same witness. But in every /each/ instance this question is altogether of an individual nature: the decision pronounced upon it incapable of serving as a rule or a guidance in any other individual case - altogether incapable of serving in the character of a general rule incapable therefore so long as any power at all was left to Jury, incapable of furnishing any the least shadow of a pretext for taking the question into the hands of a Judge.