★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<!-- date, heading and marginal notes in pencil --> <p>7 <sic>Aug.</sic> 1805</p> <head>Procedure</head> <p><note>Procedure Removal<lb/> <sic | <!-- date, heading and marginal notes in pencil --> <p>7 <sic>Aug.</sic> 1805</p> <head>Procedure</head> <p><note>Procedure Removal<lb/> <sic>Ch.</sic></note></p> <p><note>§§ Evidence <sic>rehearable</sic></note><lb/> (3) (3</p> <p>From an extreme of this description the ratio <sic>admitts</sic> of all imaginable<lb/> quantities down to that in which the extra quantity of<lb/> collateral inconvenience from distance vanishes altogether: <add> is at its minimum</add> as in the<lb?> case where the <add>metropolis is the seat of both Courts, the</add> Court below and the Court <del><gap/></del> above are both seated<lb/> in the metropolis. Here the distance being nothing, <add>natural/collateral expense</add> the inconvenience<lb/> <add>vexation and delay</add> of an Appeal will be no greater than <add><sic>d<hi rend="superscript">o</hi></sic></add> the collateral inconvenience<lb/> of <add>upon</add> a Rehearing.</p> <p> Should the difference between minutes of <foreign>viva voce</foreign> evidence<lb/> and <foreign>viva voce</foreign> evidence itself present <add>appear</add> itself as sufficiently important,<lb/> a <foreign><hi rend="underline">mezzo termini</hi></foreign> presents itself: instead of the mountain<lb/> to Mahomet, let Mahomet go to the mountain: let the Judge above<lb/> depute a competent person to hear the evidence at the seat of<lb/> the Court below.</p> <p>The question here upon the carpet, let it be observed is<lb/> among the questions, <add>to</add> which nothing less than a steady regard<lb/> to justice, such as the natural system and that above, <gap/><lb/> would have given rise. <del>In the month of no</del> <add> Under no modification of the</add> technical<lb/> system could any such question have with any tolerable degree<lb/> of consistency have been proposed: not for example under the<lb?> <del><gap/></del> <gap/> in which the <del>best</del> worst mode of extracting<lb/> evidence <add>testimony</add> is employed to the exclusion of the best: no <add> as little</add> under<lb/> the English, in which <add>so no grist be but bought to the mill,</add> bad and worst are employed with equal<lb/>indifference.</p> <!-- line in pencil across the page, note in pencil --> <p><note>Beginning?<lb/> 1</note></p> <p>The points upon which the <del> propriety of</del. <add> question</add> turns in this case<lb/> are (it may be observed) no other than those which have already<lb/> come under consideration in the case of immediate judicature. The<lb/>difference lies only in the comparative frequency of great distances.<lb/> For the purpose of immediate judicature it will sometimes happen that<lb/> in respect of the distance of <add>the abode of</add> this or that witness from the seat of judicature<lb/> it may be impossible <add>morally or even physically impracticable</add> for the Judge to review the evidence of that witness in<lb/> any better shape than that of <add>evidence</add> <gap/> <foreign><hi rend="underline">viva voce</hi></foreign>. In the case of <sic>appellates</sic><lb/> judicature that impracticability will be the ordinary and most frequent state of the case.</p> | ||
7 Aug. 1805
Procedure
Procedure Removal
Ch.
§§ Evidence rehearable
(3) (3
From an extreme of this description the ratio admitts of all imaginable
quantities down to that in which the extra quantity of
collateral inconvenience from distance vanishes altogether: is at its minimum as in the<lb?> case where the metropolis is the seat of both Courts, the Court below and the Court above are both seated
in the metropolis. Here the distance being nothing, natural/collateral expense the inconvenience
vexation and delay of an Appeal will be no greater than do the collateral inconvenience
of upon a Rehearing.
Should the difference between minutes of viva voce evidence
and viva voce evidence itself present appear itself as sufficiently important,
a mezzo termini presents itself: instead of the mountain
to Mahomet, let Mahomet go to the mountain: let the Judge above
depute a competent person to hear the evidence at the seat of
the Court below.
The question here upon the carpet, let it be observed is
among the questions, to which nothing less than a steady regard
to justice, such as the natural system and that above,
would have given rise. In the month of no Under no modification of the technical
system could any such question have with any tolerable degree
of consistency have been proposed: not for example under the<lb?> in which the best worst mode of extracting
evidence testimony is employed to the exclusion of the best: no as little under
the English, in which so no grist be but bought to the mill, bad and worst are employed with equal
indifference.
Beginning?
1
The points upon which the propriety of</del. question turns in this case
are (it may be observed) no other than those which have already
come under consideration in the case of immediate judicature. The
difference lies only in the comparative frequency of great distances.
For the purpose of immediate judicature it will sometimes happen that
in respect of the distance of the abode of this or that witness from the seat of judicature
it may be impossible morally or even physically impracticable for the Judge to review the evidence of that witness in
any better shape than that of evidence viva voce. In the case of appellates
judicature that impracticability will be the ordinary and most frequent state of the case.
|
Identifier: | JB/057/121/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 57. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1805-08-07 |
|||
|
057 |
evidence; procedure code |
||
|
121 |
procedure |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
c3 / e3 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
1800 |
||
|
1800 |
|||
|
18451 |
|||
