JB/051/010/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/051/010/001: Difference between revisions

JFoxe (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
JFoxe (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 15: Line 15:
suggest that <add>even</add> perjury itself <del>in</del> should<lb/>
suggest that <add>even</add> perjury itself <del>in</del> should<lb/>
not be an <add>conclusion</add> objection <add>exception</add> against the competency<lb/>
not be an <add>conclusion</add> objection <add>exception</add> against the competency<lb/>
 
receptibility of a witness [but only<lb/>
against his credibility &#x2014;<note>These are my reasons: it is upon these &amp; these only that my opinion hangs; and the <add>strength of</add> the reader <del>the one</del> will determine the reader's form his of the rectitude of <gap/> judgment concerning that opinion. The most abandoned perjurer is credited much oftener than he is disbelieved &#x2014; where he has no Interest to <sic>biass</sic> him he is as credible as another man &#x2014; this record should be read, &amp; evidence of practising upon him if any produced. The reason does not seem convincing that because in A. <del>the</del> a </note>




<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}

Revision as of 16:20, 19 July 2012

Click Here To Edit

CERTAINTY. EVIDENCE.

v. & Hale 277. Incompetency from Crimes.

I think I reason for admitting such an one an
evidence. And my reason is the practise of the
Law — it is founded on experiment or a course experiments
f abundant & unintermitted experiments — the result
of which is uniform in [my] favour
The doubts of the reader ought indeed in all cases to be governed guided on the weight strength of the argument, not the strength of the assertion: but I here give particular warning of it. Judgments comparison of Ideas are less liable to dispute than those which turn upon experience & observation of facts different in different men — hence I am less confident here with the same internal conviction, than in what I have said concerning Suicide, Buggery, &c. Qu I may say in short, that no exception should be raised positively against to exclude evidence at all but how few are there who enter thus anxiously intimately into the motives of their assent I hazard an opinion I am sensible, apparently very
singular & paradoxical, when I venture to
suggest that even perjury itself in should
not be an conclusion objection exception against the competency
receptibility of a witness [but only
against his credibility —These are my reasons: it is upon these & these only that my opinion hangs; and the strength of the reader the one will determine the reader's form his of the rectitude of judgment concerning that opinion. The most abandoned perjurer is credited much oftener than he is disbelieved — where he has no Interest to biass him he is as credible as another man — this record should be read, & evidence of practising upon him if any produced. The reason does not seem convincing that because in A. the a



Identifier: | JB/051/010/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 51.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

051

Main Headings

evidence; procedure code

Folio number

010

Info in main headings field

certainty evidence incompetency from crimes

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

2

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::propatria [britannia motif]]]

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

16175

Box Contents

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