JB/055/158/001

Click Here To Edit

Excluded on the ground of amity must have
been many a suit man who, if either affection could have
constituted a reasonable ground of exclusion ought to
have been excluded on the ground of . Presumption
of English law would have sufficed for reading
he find of , the testimony of too
inadmissible, partial in favour of ,

1824. Jany. 31
Constitutional Procedure CodeCh. Evidence
§. Exclusions

Thus much for simple absurdity. Now for absurdity
topt by inconsistency. In a suit
about an estate, let it be the smallest in existence £ 1s a year, the
testimony of an heir apparent is imadmissible excluded, if let it
be the largest in existence £100,000 a year, and such estates there are admitted.
Why Admitted? why? because in this latter case the
father (for this forms part of the case) has it in his power to
deprive of him of it. That fatherly affection has any
power Of any such assertion as fatherly affection the
existence is among the things which the learned author
of this distinction, wherever he was, had yet to learn.

On apparent only not on real interestedness favorable bias can
the application of exclusion on this score ever be
grounded: on one appearance, of the equivocalness of
which the multitude of family suits of which they have
given themselves the benefit might have rendered sufficiently
intelligible visible to learned Judges, had it been
their pleasure to understand it see it.

Identifier: | JB/055/158/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 55.
Date_1	1824-01-31	Marginal Summary Numbering	5-6
Box	055	Main Headings	Constitutional Code; Procedure Code
Folio number	158	Info in main headings field	Procedure Code
Image	001	Titles
Category	Text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	D6 / E6
Penner		Watermarks	J WHATMAN TURKEY MILL 1823
Marginals	Jeremy Bentham	Paper Producer	Jonathan Blenman
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1823
Notes public		ID Number	17879
Box Contents