JB/047/348/001

Click Here To Edit

29 Jan. 1812 Ch. 11 §. 2
Evidence

Difference from Affidavit form

§. 2. Bad modes Unfit employed, to the exclusion of the above by neglect fit modes.
Judges.

In regard relation to the modes of collecting evidence
employed, in perform English practice to the exclusion of the Jury-trial mode, by English Judges, if
ever the time should come, in which, to the good people of
England, justice and injustice should cease to be matter
of indifference, the following particulars propositions will not, perhaps, be deemed
altogether undeserving of their notice –

1. That depositions, comprized of testimony, collected in the
1. That the two modes that have been described Rome-bred mode, viz. in secret from under the sanction of an oath
Depositions the Roman mode and Affidavits thereby without Affidavits by the nominee of a Judge or by the nominees of the parties
viz. a deposition as taken in the judicatories called Equity
Courts, and Affidavit evidence – the form in which evidence
is given in all the Courts in which technical procedure is in use
are the only modes which the Judge is so far as they
on both sides, in answer to questions strings of questions, prepared on behalf of
have found at liberty have employed by the parties, and thus reduced to a written form to which the
deponents are made respectively to annex their signatures –
these, but to a much greater extent Affidavits, i.e. ready-written
statements delivered under the same sanction, but⊞ ⊞ without being subjected
to interrogation,
are the only forms, in which,
in so far as they have
found themselves at liberty
English Judges ever received those
communications to
which with the effect,
they have given the
name, of evidence.

2. That those modes are both of them flagrant and
both of them, repugnant to every andone of true ends of judicature conducive to
deception and thence to misdecision, conducive to needless
delay, vexation and expence.

4. That those same modes are at the same time to
a preeminent degree, subservient to the personal private
and sinister interest of those all powerful functionaries
by whose power they the use of them has been introduced
and preserved: subservient viz. to the interest of their
case, to the interest of their power, and to the interest of
their purse, productive of replete with case, power, and emolument
to the Judges themselves, and of emolument to their
supporting in the other departments of government, as
will not to their associates in the subordinate professional
use see an official situation.

Identifier: | JB/047/348/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 47.
Date_1	1812-01-29	Marginal Summary Numbering	7 or 1
Box	047	Main Headings	rationale of judicial evidence
Folio number	348	Info in main headings field	evidence ch. 11
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	c1 / d8 / e134
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	15216
Box Contents