JB/058/386/001

Click Here To Edit

18 June 1805
Evidence

Limitations to the encouragement given to mendacity –
not extended to witnesses why.

The encouragement to be given to mendacity was not indiscriminate.
Where In whatever cause profit was to be made by it, it was to be to those cases
the encouragement was to be extended: where no profit was
to be made by it, the encouragement did not was not to follow it.

It was accordingly to be given to parties and to both parties: because
it might happen to either party, to however demandant or defendant be in the wrong in
and that knowingly, in respect of his acting as that character and to know himself to be so,
and whichsoever of them was were conscious of being in the wrong, to
him it would be but natural to apply his mendacity-himn the himn given to him
for mendacity to the purpose for which it was put into his hands given to him, viz:
the manufacturing of those operations fabricating of such false assertions to which when exhibited in
this form the effect was annexed of giving rise bulk to those operations
instruments and delay, to which so many definite portions of
expence on the part at the charge of the suitor, and to the benefit and profit of
the name of law were have been attached.

It were not To be given – to parties, yes, who in virtue of
the mendacious assertions, express or implied, on which the delays given
to them, i.e. to that one of them who was in the wrong) were
grounded, were for them each for himself, his own behalf, witnesses witnesses in effect though without the name... To
parties in the character of witnesses, to self-regarding witnesses, yes:
but not to what are commonly understood by the name of witnesses,
extraneous witnesses in case of mendacity and the other securities against mendacity. To these punishment was accordingly applied,
and why? 1. Because from mendacity on their part no such
service as in the case of , as above, nor in short any other source
accrued to the man of law: while on the contrary 2. Because on the
other hand in case of from mendacity on their part, in case of prosecution
for the mendacity, where prosecution supposes punishment, by this such as
by any other, the mass of profit was encreased: which suit over and above
the pecuniary profit would afford to the man of law the opportunity
of encreasing his stock of growing popularity,
by the zeal respectable quality which the
prosecution would afford
him an opportunity
for displaying – the
law of justice.

Identifier: | JB/058/386/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 58.
Date_1	1805-06-18	Marginal Summary Numbering	1-2
Box	058	Main Headings	evidence
Folio number	386	Info in main headings field	evidence
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	c1 / e1
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	1800
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1800
Notes public		ID Number	19055
Box Contents