[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.