★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
1824. Jany. 25
Constitutional Procedure CodeCh. Evidence Rules
§. Exclusion
(b) To corruption in part, to confusion of mind
an other part may the exclusion in their cause be refused.
Where shall that person be found who is less Who is less likely that the person interrogated to delivery testimony
by which truth is violated to his prejudice? Apt tenderness
to the person interrogated is here the pretence more
consistent and less flagrantly absurd would the exclusion would be that
which should be if applied to all mankind besides.
To the guilty alone can this rule be productive of any advantage:
to the not on guilty it is useless: they have no need of it.
To them it is even
worse than useless:
for it precludes them
from being subjected
to a test a test the only
test by which their
non-guiltiness could
compleatly be established.
Accordingly where
you see an man making
use of this rule, you may stand
assured that something some act
or other which is treated
on the footing of a guilty
one, has been performed
either by himself or
by some person to whom
he is labouring to
give support.
A rule the meaning of which if in the mind of
the curators it ever had any clear meaning has been clouded
and distorted by the wording is commonly employed in giving color in
their practice this case to the exclusionary practice. In
Later non-parties system – the English
no man is bound to accuse himself. Part answers to
But as to accusation there is no such thing in this case has nothing to do with the matter is foreign to has no part in
the case. Accusation is or may be a spontaneous act: responsive
accusation a quite different one. Response is a
to by which the trouble Response is an operation
is a non spontaneous act. Accusation thus applied is a
accusation a quite different one. Response is a non-spontaneous
act: accusation a spontaneous act. mere figure of speech: one of the instruments of deception
employed by that branch branch of the art of misrepresentation
which is termed rhetoric.
Furnishing an answer, or silence the what is equivalent, an
act of rash silence a negative act, the of a capable of having for its
effect of which by or speech may be produced
an opinion which may have for which the of which the ultimate consequence may be the infliction of
punishment suffered in some shape or other form suffered by him from whom the answer is thus answer or the
furnished, is is evidentious silence is thus extracted is a sort of operation not very likely
it is true, to be a pleasant one. But the punishment itself is much more
unpleasant. Good for the exclusion of the probable cause or possible or in what degree soever,
the reason would be still better for the exclusion of the effect.
Good for the exclusion of the unpleasant effects operations, the
Good for the non-production of the unpleasant feeling it would
be for the still better for the non-productive of the still more unpleasant
feeling – that produced by the punishment itself, in a word all punishment
for the abolition of all punishment.⊞ ⊞ Good for the exclusion
of testimony from the
persons own lips, it
would be still better
for the exclusion of
testimony from all
other lips.
Now as to consistency.
Answer to a question by a true answer to what?
Evidence by which my wife my child my father would be
subjected to certain death with confiscation of all property I may be called
upon to give: answer to a question by answer to which I might be could not
be subjected to the loss of more than a shilling, I can not be called upon to
give if the suit be called a penal one: yes if it be called a civil one.
|
Identifier: | JB/055/161/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 55. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1824-01-31 |
[[marginal_summary_numbering::13 or 1 - 17 [or] 5]] |
||
|
055 |
Constitutional Code; Procedure Code |
||
|
161 |
Procedure Code |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
Text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
D9 / E1 |
||
|
J WHATMAN TURKEY MILL 1823 |
|||
|
Jonathan Blenman |
|||
|
1823 |
|||
|
17882 |
|||
