★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<head>Evidence</head> | <head>Evidence</head> | ||
<note>Note</note> | |||
<note>Leading and discrediting</note> | <note>Leading and discrediting</note> | ||
<p>-dit, we should say, putting his <del>veracity</del> <add>credit</add> to the trial, trying<lb/>whether the truth can <del>g</del> be got out of him or no: <del>it is</del><lb/> <del>only in the latter case</del> letting him see that <del>the</del> loss of <lb/>credit will be the consequence of his persisting in keeping<lb/>it back.<add>+</add> It is only in the latter <add>other</add> case, <del>that it can be</del> <add>that is</add><lb/>where the witness has gone too far in the path of prevarication<lb/> to come back again, that the process carried<lb/>on by the examiner can <del>be</del> in strictness of speech<lb/>be <sic>stiled</sic> an attempt to discredit the <add>him</add> witness, that is, to<lb/> discredit him at all events. The result of the first<lb/>endeavour, may, <add>it is true,</add> in the event of that endeavour's proving<lb/>unsuccessful <del>had</del> terminate in the effect aimed at<lb/> by the second: but in the opposite event, it will <del>act</del><lb/>have an opposite termination, and at any rate the two<lb/> endeavours are distinct, the latter very frequently not commencing<lb/>till after the former one has been deemed hopeless.</p> | <p>-dit, we should say, putting his <del>veracity</del> <add>credit</add> to the trial, trying<lb/>whether the truth can <del>g</del> be got out of him or no: <del>it is</del><lb/> <del>only in the latter case</del> letting him see that <del>the</del> loss of <lb/>credit will be the consequence of his persisting in keeping<lb/>it back.<add>+</add> It is only in the latter <add>other</add> case, <del>that it can be</del> <add>that is</add><lb/>where the witness has gone too far in the path of prevarication<lb/> to come back again, that the process carried<lb/>on by the examiner can <del>be</del> in strictness of speech<lb/>be <sic>stiled</sic> an attempt to discredit the <add>him</add> witness, that is, to<lb/> discredit him at all events. The result of the first<lb/>endeavour, may, <add>it is true,</add> in the event of that endeavour's proving<lb/>unsuccessful <del>had</del> terminate in the effect aimed at<lb/> by the second: but in the opposite event, it will <del>act</del><lb/>have an opposite termination, and at any rate the two<lb/> endeavours are distinct, the latter very frequently not commencing<lb/>till after the former one has been deemed hopeless.</p> | ||
<note>+ by objecting to the answer<lb/>in which he disclaims the<lb/>knowledge of it, a fact<lb/><add>with</add> which such answer<lb/>appears to be inconsistent:<lb/> opposing the<lb/>answer <del>as if</del> with the<lb/>fact, and daring him<lb/>as it were to doing it.<lb/>The consequence is that<lb/>if the fact suggested by<lb/> the <del><gap/></del> interrogating<lb/>is admitted, the witness<lb/>to clear himself from the<lb/> reproach of permanent<lb/>inconsistency, must either<lb/> retract or modify his<lb/>first answer by a second.<lb/> And in this case<lb/>the question ought rather<lb/>to be termed an objecting<lb/>of <del>admonishing</del> <add>cautioning</add> question,<lb/>than a discrediting<lb/>one.</note> | <note>+ by objecting to the answer<lb/>in which he disclaims the<lb/>knowledge of it, a fact<lb/><add>with</add> which such answer<lb/>appears to be inconsistent:<lb/> opposing the<lb/>answer <del>as if</del> with the<lb/>fact, and daring him<lb/>as it were to doing it.<lb/>The consequence is that<lb/>if the fact suggested by<lb/> the <del><gap/></del> interrogating<lb/>is admitted, the witness<lb/>to clear himself from the<lb/> reproach of permanent<lb/>inconsistency, must either<lb/> retract or modify his<lb/>first answer by a second.<lb/> And in this case<lb/>the question ought rather<lb/>to be termed an objecting<lb/>of <del>admonishing</del> <add>cautioning</add> question,<lb/>than a discrediting<lb/>one.</note> | ||
<note>19<lb/>The former only<lb/>could have been the<lb/>object in the present<lb/>case.</note> | <note>19<lb/>The former only<lb/>could have been the<lb/>object in the present<lb/>case.</note> | ||
<p>In the case in hand the object plainly was not<lb/>to discredit but only to <del>admonish</del> <add>caution:</add>; and by the force of<lb/><del>that admonition</del> <add>such cautioning</add> to extract from the witness the truth<lb/>in the event of his heaving an inclination to withhold<lb/> it. To put him in fear of his credibility, might,<lb/>and <del>probably</del> in all probability would answer that<lb/>purpose: to destroy his credibility outright <add>to take away his credibility altogether</add> could answer<lb/>none.</p> | <p>In the case in hand the object plainly was not<lb/>to discredit but only to <del>admonish</del> <add>caution:</add>; and by the force of<lb/><del>that admonition</del> <add>such cautioning</add> to extract from the witness the truth<lb/>in the event of his heaving an inclination to withhold<lb/> it. To put him in fear of his credibility, might,<lb/>and <del>probably</del> in all probability would answer that<lb/>purpose: to destroy his credibility outright <add>to take away his credibility altogether</add> could answer<lb/>none.</p> | ||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} |
Evidence Note Leading and discrediting
-dit, we should say, putting his veracity credit to the trial, trying
whether the truth can g be got out of him or no: it is
only in the latter case letting him see that the loss of
credit will be the consequence of his persisting in keeping
it back.+ It is only in the latter other case, that it can be that is
where the witness has gone too far in the path of prevarication
to come back again, that the process carried
on by the examiner can be in strictness of speech
be stiled an attempt to discredit the him witness, that is, to
discredit him at all events. The result of the first
endeavour, may, it is true, in the event of that endeavour's proving
unsuccessful had terminate in the effect aimed at
by the second: but in the opposite event, it will act
have an opposite termination, and at any rate the two
endeavours are distinct, the latter very frequently not commencing
till after the former one has been deemed hopeless.
+ by objecting to the answer
in which he disclaims the
knowledge of it, a fact
with which such answer
appears to be inconsistent:
opposing the
answer as if with the
fact, and daring him
as it were to doing it.
The consequence is that
if the fact suggested by
the interrogating
is admitted, the witness
to clear himself from the
reproach of permanent
inconsistency, must either
retract or modify his
first answer by a second.
And in this case
the question ought rather
to be termed an objecting
of admonishing cautioning question,
than a discrediting
one.
19
The former only
could have been the
object in the present
case.
In the case in hand the object plainly was not
to discredit but only to admonish caution:; and by the force of
that admonition such cautioning to extract from the witness the truth
in the event of his heaving an inclination to withhold
it. To put him in fear of his credibility, might,
and probably in all probability would answer that
purpose: to destroy his credibility outright to take away his credibility altogether could answer
none.
Identifier: | JB/051/415/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 51. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
1-4 |
|||
051 |
evidence; procedure code |
||
415 |
preuves - examiner - brouillon |
||
001 |
|||
marginal summary sheet |
2 |
||
recto |
|||
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]] |
||
in french |
16580 |
||