JB/047/081/001

Click Here To Edit

23 Decr 1803
Evidence

§. Succedaneum to exclusion – Instructions indicating the danger of deception

Meantime though no one sinister species of interest has yet in
acting singly, nor yet any number of interests acting in
conjunction, upon the mind in a sinister direction, and thence in the character
of mendacity-prompting motives ought to be received
as constituting a ground for the exclusion of evidence,
yet there is not one which, as often as it can be seen
acting in any such that direction, may not with propriety
and effect be pointed out as a possible cause of mendacity
and deception, and thence as a source of danger
against which it imports concerns the judge to be on his guard.

Hence the propriety and use of

In the language of the English law, no sinister
interest, nor any combination of sinister interests, nor any
other possible cause of mendacity or deception – improbity – religion
imbecility – ought to be held good as an objection to a
the competency of witness in point of competency: no
one that ought not to be held up to the view of the
Judge as a ground of suspicion – to be held good as
an objection to the witness in point of credibility.

Note (a)

In the import which presents itself as annexed to the term
credibility, by the analogies of the language there is an incongruity
which renders where accurate conception is the
object renders it ill-adapted to use. According to the import
commonly conveyed by the latin termination – ilitas in English
ility credibility should mean not merely degree fitness but capacity, incredibility, incapacity,
impossibility of being believed. In this sense it is that we speak
of a pretended fact – of a report as being incredible. In this
sense the distinction between incompetency and incredibility would vanish.
For, admitting it to be impossible a man should be believed, there certainly
could be no use in hearing
him. So again, admitt it
to be impossible he should
speak true, if moreover
it were in that case not
impossible that he should
be believed, it would follow
that there would be a use
in refusing to hear him. In that case (a more ideal one) exclusion would be of use.

Identifier: | JB/047/081/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 47.
Date_1	1803-12-23	Marginal Summary Numbering	1-2, 2a
Box	047	Main Headings	evidence
Folio number	081	Info in main headings field	evidence
Image	001	Titles	note (a)
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	e1
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	1800
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1800
Notes public		ID Number	14949
Box Contents