JB/047/325/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/047/325/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/047/325/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/047/325/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p>27 July 1812<lb/>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<!-- pencil --><head>Evidence Introd</head></p>
 
<p>By non-demand <del>or by</del> <add>and</add> misdecision, <del>as the case may</del> <add>taken together,</add><lb/>
 
<del>be</del> that, of the practice of putting exclusion upon evidence, the <hi rend="underline">effect</hi><lb/>
 
is much more frequently to <hi rend="underline">produce</hi> than to <hi rend="underline">prevent</hi> injustice, – so<lb/>
much so, that it would be a prodigious benefit to justice if Exclusion<lb/>
of evidence were, in so far as it takes <hi rend="underline">this</hi> for its ground, itself <add>excluded</add> – for ever, and in every instance<lb/>
excluded – is a persuasion<lb/>
<del>confirmed by</del> <add>entertained after</add> little<lb/>
less than fifty years of<lb/>
consideration, on grounds,<lb/>
of which a slight<lb/>
outline will be given<lb/>
in the <add>present</add> abstract, the<lb/>
filling it up being<lb/>
reserved for the body<lb/>
of the work.</p>
<p>But <hi rend="underline">trustworthiness</hi> .... <del>excluding an article of</del> <add>it may be asked) – why</add><lb/>
speak him of trustworthiness? – Against deception, yes:  but by<lb/>
<del>evidence can that have ever been considered as affording</del><lb/>
whom <del>could</del> can any such conception have been entertained as that<lb/>
<add>exclusion of evidence can operate as</add> a security for the trustworthiness of <del>the lot<lb/>
so excluded <gap/></del> <add>evidence? – as</add> a security for its title to credence<lb/>
any more than for its actually obtaining credence?</p>
<p>No certainly:  not for the trustworthiness of <del>that</del> <add>the</add><lb/>
<del>one that</del> the particular lot of evidence to which, in <del>each</del> <add>the</add> instance<lb/>
<del>body <add>the <gap/> is applied</add></del> <add>in question, the exclusion is applied:</add> for by the exclusion put upon it its untrustworthiness<lb/>
is always assumed – not for the trustworthiness<lb/>
of that one lot, but however for the trustworthiness of<lb/>
<del>that</del> <add>the</add> whole <add>remaining</add> mass, of which that lot, had it obtained<lb/>
admittance, would have made a part <add>of the whole remaining mass</add>: – if so it<lb/>
be, that, after the exclusion of whatever articles<lb/>
have been excluded, there <hi rend="underline">be</hi> <add>remaining</add> any others <del>that have<lb/>
obtained admittance</del> to which admittance has<lb/>
not been refused.</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 12:20, 28 April 2023

Click Here To Edit

27 July 1812
Evidence Introd

By non-demand or by and misdecision, as the case may taken together,
be that, of the practice of putting exclusion upon evidence, the effect
is much more frequently to produce than to prevent injustice, – so
much so, that it would be a prodigious benefit to justice if Exclusion
of evidence were, in so far as it takes this for its ground, itself excluded – for ever, and in every instance
excluded – is a persuasion
confirmed by entertained after little
less than fifty years of
consideration, on grounds,
of which a slight
outline will be given
in the present abstract, the
filling it up being
reserved for the body
of the work.

But trustworthiness .... excluding an article of it may be asked) – why
speak him of trustworthiness? – Against deception, yes: but by
evidence can that have ever been considered as affording
whom could can any such conception have been entertained as that
exclusion of evidence can operate as a security for the trustworthiness of the lot
so excluded
evidence? – as a security for its title to credence
any more than for its actually obtaining credence?

No certainly: not for the trustworthiness of that the
one that the particular lot of evidence to which, in each the instance
body the is applied in question, the exclusion is applied: for by the exclusion put upon it its untrustworthiness
is always assumed – not for the trustworthiness
of that one lot, but however for the trustworthiness of
that the whole remaining mass, of which that lot, had it obtained
admittance, would have made a part of the whole remaining mass: – if so it
be, that, after the exclusion of whatever articles
have been excluded, there be remaining any others that have
obtained admittance
to which admittance has
not been refused.


Identifier: | JB/047/325/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 47.

Date_1

1812-07-28

Marginal Summary Numbering

3-4

Box

047

Main Headings

rationale of judicial evidence

Folio number

325

Info in main headings field

evidence introd.

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

d2 / e2 / f111

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

th 1806

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

andre morellet

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1806

Notes public

ID Number

15193

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in