JB/034/242/001

Click Here To Edit

1823. Decr. 22.
Constitutional Code

Question. Why not allow the appellate Judicatory
to have for its decrees, any other ground, than what
has been afforded by the record of the proceedings of
the immediate Judicatory? Why not allow it, to examine
fresh evidence?

Answer. 1. The proper point of view, for the Appellate
Judicatory to contemplate the evidence and
other proceedings in, is that in which alone, the Public
Opinion Tribunal, can contemplate
them.

2. Only from such evidence and grounds, as he
had before him, can the appellate form any just conception
of the conduct of the immediate Judge.

3. If the case be such, that subsequently to
the decrees of the immediate Judicatory, fresh evidence
impugning the decree, has come to light it is to the
Immediate Judicatory that it ought to f be presented
and not to the appellate. If presented to the
Appellate without passing through the Immediate
the evidence would not have the benefit of an examination,
before a Quasi Jury.

It is for want of evidence that might and
should have been contributed to, and received by, the Immediate
Judicatory, that a supposed misdecision has
taken place, the remedy that should have been applied
is, a petition to the immediate Judicatory – a petition
for supply of evidence: of which petition, the denial formed a ground for quasi Appeal.

Identifier: | JB/034/242/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 34.
Date_1	1823-12-22	Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	034	Main Headings	constitutional code
Folio number	242	Info in main headings field	constitutional code
Image	001	Titles
Category	copy/fair copy sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering
Penner	richard doane	Watermarks	j whatman turkey mill 1823
Marginals		Paper Producer	admiral pavel chichagov
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1823
Notes public		ID Number	10516
Box Contents