Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow SECTION XIX.: SUBSEQUENTIAL EVIDENCE, HOW ELICITED. - The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 3

Return to Title Page for The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 3

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Economics
Subject Area: Political Theory
Subject Area: Law

SECTION XIX.: SUBSEQUENTIAL EVIDENCE, HOW ELICITED. - Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 3 [1843]

Edition used:

The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 vols. Vol. 3.

Part of: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 11 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


SECTION XIX.

SUBSEQUENTIAL EVIDENCE, HOW ELICITED.

Enactive.

Art. 1. As to the mode of elicitation,—exceptions excepted, oral, perpetuated, as above, by instantly-succeeding minutation, is the mode that will be employed.

Enactive.—Ratiocinative.

Art. 2.—Exception i. Without preponderant evil in the shape of danger of deception, and thence of misdecision, saving produced by the epistolary mode in respect of delay and expense; intercourse being carried on free of expense, by means of the letter-post; the House of Call being settled as per Section XVI. art. 4.

Enactive.—Ratiocinative.—Exemplificative.

Art. 3.—Exception ii. The oral mode relatively impracticable: for example, the residence of the proposed examinee not being sufficiently known or settled, or being in a distant dependency of this realm, or in territory of a foreign state.

Enactive.

Art. 4. In this case it will rest with the Judge, consideration had of the circumstances of the individual case, to avail himself of such means of intercourse as it may happen to afford; or, for want of such means, to proceed without the piece of evidence in question, or to dismiss the suit from the cognizance of the Dispatch Court.

Enactive.

Art. 5. Subject to re-examination in the oral mode, in case of need, at the discretion of the Judge, will be every piece of evidence elicited in the epistolary mode:—re-examination, that is to say, of the same examinee, with or without counter-evidence and corroborative evidence elicited from other sources.

Art. 6. Submitted, before issuing, to inspection and amendment on the part of the Judge, will be every piece of evidence so elicited in the epistolary mode, as above.

Art. 7. The Judge may, at his discretion, taking the sense of the parties, settle in terminis the answers required to be given by the examinee, in return to the epistolarily-uttered interrogatories. In this case, with the exception of the oath, the answer so returned will in its force be analogous to an affidavit: the species of evidence, affidavit evidence.

Exemplificative.

Art. 8. Example of a case in which, by reason of its simplicity, it may happen that the course thus chalked out may be pursued without evil consequence in the shape of deception and misdecision through falsehood, criminal or culpable,—authentication of a written instrument, by acknowledgment made by the examinee that a signature purporting to be his is really his.

Enactive.—Ratiocinative.

Art. 29. Neither in respect of fabrication, nor in respect of utterance accompanied with evil consciousness, should forgery be presumed. Accordingly, every written instrument delivered as genuine, and as having been framed and signed without any invalidating circumstances, will be admitted, unless by some party to the suit, the existence or suspicion of its being tainted with forgery, or adopted under invalidating circumstances, be declared.

Expositive.

Art. 30. By invalidating circumstances, understand—I. Illegal force; 2. Fraud; 3. Blameless mistake.

Enactive.

Art. 31. Except as above, no evidence, personal, oral, or written, will be excluded, otherwise than for irrelevancy, and thence uninstructiveness.

Art. 32. Between the evidence of parties to the suit, or say party-witnesses or litigant-witnesses, and the evidence of extraneous witnesses, or say individuals who are not parties to the suit, no distinction will be made as to competency or trustworthiness.

Ratiocinative.

Art. 32*. Why this provision?—Answer:

i. On the part of an extraneous witness, an interest not less strong, even in any degree stronger, than on the part of a party to the suit, may have place, not only without possibility of being proved, but without being so much as exposed to suspicion: hence, if on the score of interest, and for fear of deception by reason of it, the evidence of a party, or the evidence of a non-party known to have an interest in the suit, ought to be excluded, so ought all evidence whatsoever.

ii. Whatsoever be the value in dispute on the occasion of the suit, the seductive force of pecuniary interest will depend, not on the absolute quantum of the value, but upon its relative value, relation had to the pecuniary and other circumstances of the individual in question.

iii. The force of the seductive interest in question being the same (suppose) in both cases, its tendency to produce deception will be much less in the case of a party witness than in the case of a non-party witness. Why?—Because in the case of the party witness, the Judge is aware of it, and of course upon his guard against it: in the case of the non-party-witness, not.

iv. Under the existing system, in cases in which the seductive force of interest is at its maximum, and the mischief producible by it also at its maximum, the evidence of a single witness has commanded, and may at any time command the decision: instances more than one have had place, in which a man has been put to death for murder on the single evidence of an accomplice, purchased by impunity with a thousand pounds reward, promised in case of conviction and not otherwise: nor in these cases did any doubt in respect of the guiltiness of the sufferer anywhere manifest itself.

v. Under the existing system, in cases in which no seductive force in any shape is known to have place, the mere name of interest in a pecuniary shape,—namely, the eventual expectation of a profit amounting to no more than a minute fraction of the value of the smallest denomination of coin, necessitates exclusion: in here and there a particular instance, the bar has been removed by a statute on purpose; but with these exceptions, it remains unremovable.

vi. Scarcely in any other than the pecuniary shape is interest received as a cause of exclusion. By no other attractive force than that of money is a man’s testimony capable of being drawn aside from the path of sincerity: and by that attractive force of money, though it be next to nothing, every man’s testimony is sure to be thus drawn aside. Such, in relation to this matter, are the maxims on the ground of which the existing system has been established.

Enactive.

Art. 33. In regard to priority of elicitation, as between co-demandants, defendants, and extraneous witnesses respectively, the Judge will in each individual case be guided by the circumstances of that same case: employing in the first place his endeavours to elicit with the utmost prudentially practicable promptitude, or say with the minimum of useless delay, each piece of evidence: in the next place, his caution in not giving to any piece of evidence publicity in such sort as to give mendacity-assisting instruction to subsequently-about-to-be-elicited evidence: regard being also had to the convenience of all persons concerned in respect of times of attendance.