★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
m Protected "JB/047/101/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''[{{fullurl:JB/047/101/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | '''[{{fullurl:JB/047/101/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<p><!-- pencil -->17 Sept. 1803<lb/> | |||
<!-- pencil --><head>Evidence</head></p> | |||
<p>Another <add>false</add> ground of exclusion may be termed <hi rend="underline">Co-defendantship</hi>.</p> | |||
<p><del>By the Engli</del> This ground of exclusion though <del>simple</del><lb/> | |||
in denomination simple, is in its nature complex. It is<lb/> | |||
resolvable into two very distinct grounds that have been<lb/> | |||
already mentioned viz: <hi rend="underline">Reluctance</hi> and <hi rend="underline">Interestedness</hi>. Is<lb/> | |||
the result of the communication favourable to the charge? It operation<lb/> | |||
is unfavourable probably to the witness himself at<lb/> | |||
any rate to his friend and associate – not to say his accomplice.<lb/> | |||
Is it unfavourable to the charge? the witness is thus<lb/> | |||
admitted to give <add>as</add> evidence <del>probably in his own behalf</del><lb/> | |||
from which certainly his friend and associate, probably enough<lb/> | |||
himself may receive a benefit.</p> | |||
<p>So <del>shallow</del> pernicious are this rule – so shallow<lb/> | |||
the reasoning that gave birth to it, a <del>perjured</del> false <add>and mala fide</add> accuser<lb/> | |||
derived from it, a sure method <add>receipt</add> for getting rid of all those<lb/> | |||
<del>who he <gap/></del> by whose testimony the falshood could be exposed.<lb/> | |||
He had but to make them defendants.</p> | |||
<p>The mischief <add>grievance</add> being too crying, too shocking to common<lb/> | |||
sense and humanity to be endured, lawyers found themselves<lb/> | |||
under the necessity of applying to it some sort of remedy.<lb/> | |||
Accordingly, when a case occurred that called for it, a decision<lb/> | |||
was pronounced, that <del><gap/></del> <add>where</add> several persons had been made defendants,<lb/> | |||
if there were any one or more against <unclear>whom</unclear> as<lb/> | |||
evidence had been given on the part of the plaintiff such<lb/> | |||
defendant or defendants might be examined by and on<lb/> | |||
behalf of the rest.</p> | |||
<p>By this decision some sort of provision was made<lb/> | |||
for the interests of <del>the</del> individuals – the defendants. If after<lb/> | |||
having produced all <add>the whole mass</add> his testimony the whole mass of the <del>testi</del><lb/> | |||
evidence on the side of the plaintiff had been produced <del>now</del> <add>a</add><lb/> | |||
defendant was found to whose case none of it applied, his | |||
own acquittal followed of course, and then his colleagues – the<lb/> | |||
co-defendants <del>may</del> were admitted to derive whatever benefit was derivable to their <gap/> testimony.</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}} |
17 Sept. 1803
Evidence
Another false ground of exclusion may be termed Co-defendantship.
By the Engli This ground of exclusion though simple
in denomination simple, is in its nature complex. It is
resolvable into two very distinct grounds that have been
already mentioned viz: Reluctance and Interestedness. Is
the result of the communication favourable to the charge? It operation
is unfavourable probably to the witness himself at
any rate to his friend and associate – not to say his accomplice.
Is it unfavourable to the charge? the witness is thus
admitted to give as evidence probably in his own behalf
from which certainly his friend and associate, probably enough
himself may receive a benefit.
So shallow pernicious are this rule – so shallow
the reasoning that gave birth to it, a perjured false and mala fide accuser
derived from it, a sure method receipt for getting rid of all those
who he by whose testimony the falshood could be exposed.
He had but to make them defendants.
The mischief grievance being too crying, too shocking to common
sense and humanity to be endured, lawyers found themselves
under the necessity of applying to it some sort of remedy.
Accordingly, when a case occurred that called for it, a decision
was pronounced, that where several persons had been made defendants,
if there were any one or more against whom as
evidence had been given on the part of the plaintiff such
defendant or defendants might be examined by and on
behalf of the rest.
By this decision some sort of provision was made
for the interests of the individuals – the defendants. If after
having produced all the whole mass his testimony the whole mass of the testi
evidence on the side of the plaintiff had been produced now a
defendant was found to whose case none of it applied, his
own acquittal followed of course, and then his colleagues – the
co-defendants may were admitted to derive whatever benefit was derivable to their testimony.
Identifier: | JB/047/101/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 47. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
1803-09-17 |
1-3 |
||
047 |
evidence |
||
101 |
evidence |
||
001 |
|||
text sheet |
1 |
||
recto |
e1 |
||
jeremy bentham |
|||
14969 |
|||