9 Sept 1804

Evidence

Circumstantial

Ch. Generalia

§. Modification

[...?]. Evidence by deportment - by demeanour - by behaviour - by conduct by actions - all these denominations indicate nearly the same thing - personal evidence of this sort though it be of a nature peculiar to persons /besides having a person for its source/, and agrees in some respects with evidence by discourse, differs widely and materially from it in other respects. In the way of discourse, evidence can not be given by a person without the concurrence of his will, directed to the very object of inducing a belief of the facts reported by it: in the way of deportment evidence may be given - the existence of the facts in question suggested - without any such concurrence. Indeed it is mostly in the case when /in which/ if it depended upon his will no such suggestion - no such persuasion - would take place, that the evidence in the way of deportment is resorted to. discourse it is current /well known/, is the ordinary, most apposite, and most determinate and unambiguous vehicle for human ideas for personal evidence. Deportment is but an imperfect and makeshift substitute for discourse. Accordingly it is only when evidence in the way of discourse is not to be had or is regarded as fallacious, that /recourse is had/ evidence in /by/ the way of deportment is recurred to. Evidence by deportment is not - nothing but evidence in the way of discourse is - testimony nor that when extra[?] judicially uttered[?]. Questions substituted in some cases of natural defect for language /words/ are not deportment but testimony. Signs also, if employed instead of language, come under the notion of evidence by discourse, and not under that of evidence by deportment.