JB/047/084/002

Click Here To Edit

24 Novr 1803
Evidence

1. Of these four courses the first as being the most simple,
is the most likely to have been pursued by legislators. It is Accordingly
that which, with little or no exceptions but few exceptions, appears to have been pursued
by legislators. It is that which requires least thought: and the
whole system of exclusions in regard to evidence seems appears to have originated in want of
thought.

2. In the second case, where there is no other evidence, in this case, supposing it excluded, the deficiency
created by the exclusion is more irreparable: supposing
the evidence would have proved true and persuasive, the deficiency
created by the exclusion of it is fatal to justice. Thus for this
second case coinciding with the first

This case however is so far distinguished But to distinguish it from the first case, in this second case,
if there is other evidence to the same point, the exclusion does not
take place. In the case supposed by this By this conditional admission, the danger of deception
it is evident is much lessened; not to say done away. On the
other hand the utility of the evidence in question – the demand for it
on the score of utility – (of necessity to use a term which employed
in preference by the impatience if argumentative) is much less urgent;
not to say done away. If good better exists, why have recourse to the worse?bad?

where he was excluded, but to his credibility. The two words began
with the same letter, and upon paper were not destitute of resemblance.
But in effect what resulted from the change of expression? – a point-blank
repugnancy. When the objection had been held good
as an objection to a man's competency, he stood excluded: where it
came to be held good not as an objection to his competency, but
only to his credibility, or as the word is sometimes to his credit
he was admitted: in which case the objection was in effect no
objection at all. The object of this sophistry abuse of words was to find a posture
for disallowing the principle in subsequent succeeding cases, without appearing
to reprobate the application that had been made of it in preceding ones,
to represent the departure made as a very slight one, as no more than
what corresponded to the difference between case and case: which difference
in fact amounted might well enough be slight, seen with reference to the
principle in question – the ground of suspicion – it amounted to none at all.

Identifier: | JB/047/084/002 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 47.
Date_1	1803-01-28	Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	047	Main Headings	evidence
Folio number	084a "a" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 84.	Info in main headings field	evidence
Image	002	Titles	note continued
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	e2
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	1800
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1800
Notes public		ID Number	14952
Box Contents