JB/047/078/001

Click Here To Edit

12 July 1803
Evidence

It is a circumstance consideration curious enough to be at any rate
in the way of speculation, (though but whether the contemplation of it will
have any influence on practice remains to be seen –) that
among the rules of evidence as laid down by lawyers, and in particular
by English lawyers, are compleatly incompatible with the
existence of commercial society. I mean in the that general form
in which they appear to have been originally conceived, and are
still frequently announced; and abstraction made of those necessary
but inconsistent exceptions which have crept in by degrees, and
which have been extorted it should seem one after another from
the wavering conscience of judges, by the prospect of the drain
that in each case would have attended in the been the result of an adherence to the
rule. No Yes The All the wounds which society ever received from
its foundation to this time from the whole fraternity of malefactors
would have been but are but scratches to the in comparison of the distinction
it would have that would have been inflicted on it by
the rash precipitant rashness and blind presumption of Judges
its official guardians. To look no further the single rule of exclusion
on the score of pecuniary Interest⊞ ⊞ The condition of Hottentots is the condition to which
society would be reduced
by a consistent any tolerably steady application
of the rules laid down by
the instruction (in regards for such is the called
be favourite denomination given to
blind caprice) for such is the language of English Judges would if consistently pursued, have
been sufficient to the purpose of this universal ruin.

Take the case of the Shopkeeper, the Tradesman, and see how under the
dominion auspices of this rule he is ever to obtain any payment of for
his g any an article on the sale of which he depends for his subsistence.
His own testimony is Written or vivâ voce, unsanctioned
or sanctioned – unscrutinized or scrutinized – his own evidence
remains compleatly excluded in all ordinary cases by this
baleful rule prejudice. The evidence of his wife, if he has one,
is excluded by another branch of the same prejudice. The
evidence of his servant howsoever sanctioned and scrutinized –
the evidence of his servants of all descriptions – that is the evidence of every other individual who can on his part behalf
have borne a part in the delivery of he goods, would again be
excluded by another application of the same rule prejudice.(a) By a
point blank and most unprincipled violation of the same rule,(a)
this latter species of evidence is indeed admitted, and there it is, that even a
compleat

Note
(a) Supposing the goods not delivered
by the porter, the porter
remains responsible to his master
for the value. But
whatsoever may be the pressure
of a loss to a given amount
upon the master, that of a
loss to the same amount
cannot but be sit heavier upon
the servant in a rate determined upon
by the difference
between the masses of their respective
property. In the case of testimony
the force of the interest will
therefore be proportionable.

Identifier: | JB/047/078/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 47.
Date_1	1803-07-13	Marginal Summary Numbering	not numbered
Box	047	Main Headings	evidence
Folio number	078	Info in main headings field	evidence
Image	001	Titles	concluding observations / note
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	d1 / e1
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	1800
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1800
Notes public		ID Number	14946
Box Contents