17 May 1804

Evidence

Forthcomingness

Ch. Investigatorial

§ 4 Rule 3

3. Rule 3. In relation to each individual cause power of ultimate decision ought to be lodged in the same hands as those in which power of investigational procedure is lodged in relation to the same cause: and vice versâ.

More briefly these -

Powers of ultimate decision and power of investigatorial procedure ought to be lodged in the same hands.

Reasons - Reason 1. If all the evidence which the transaction furnishes happens to be present /forthcoming/ at the first hearing, let the Judge, who on that occasion receives the evidence, be competent to decide, the decision may be, and (saving the case of a demand of time for deliberation) ought to be pronounced. Vexation, expense and delay all unnecessary and useless will in that case be the inseparable results of any subsequent hearing. But if the judge who is competent to receive the evidence in the first instance is not competent to decide upon it, there must in all cases be at least two hearings, of which one at least is /can not but be/ productive of the useless inconveniences just mentioned.

N.B. The cases in which the inconvenience in question would take place promise /appear/ to be by far the greater number. For in every country in by far the greater number of causes at present brought into a Court of Justice the right is clear, the evidence known and simple. Debt proved by a Bond /Bill of Exchange/ or title of land in possession of the plaintiff. Debt for goods as sold and delivered by a shop-keeper: evidence the testimony of his journeyman or porter. Battery proved by the person beaten with or without testimony of a witness or witnesses whom he brings with him. Theft /Depredation/ committed by a thief on a house or shop evidence the testimony of the person who caught the thief in the act, with the goods upon him.