|
THOMAS PEAKE, A COMPENDIUM OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (London, E. & R. Brooke & J. Rider 1801).
LEONARD MACNALLY, THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ON PLEAS OF THE CROWN (London, Butterworth 1802).
A TREATISE ON JUDICIAL EVIDENCE EXTRACTED FROM THE MANUSCRIPTS OF JEREMY BENTHAM, ESQ. (Etienne Dumont ed., London, J.W. Paget 1825); RATIONALE OF JUDICIAL EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY APPLIED TO ENGLISH PRACTICE (John Stuart Mill ed., London, Hunt & Clarke 1827). 关于边沁的作者身份及这些著作的日期, see Andrew D.E. Lewis, The Background to Bentham on Evidence, 2 UTILITAS 195, 203-16 (1990); Andrew D.E. Lewis, Bentham''s View of the Right to Silence, 43 CURRENT LEGAL PROBLEMS 135, 138 (1990).
EAST, supra note 47.
ROBERT JOSEPH POTHIER, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF OBLIGATIONS OR CONTRACTS (William D. Evans ed. & trans. London, A. Strahan 1806).
SAMUEL MARCH PHILLIPPS, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (London, A. Strahan 2d. ed. 1815). 第一版早一年出版但在今天已经不易获得。See 2 ADAMS & DAVIES, supra note 17, at 833.
JOHN FREDERICK ARCHBOLD, A DIGEST OF THE LAW RELATIVE TO PLEADING AND PRACTICE IN ACTIONS REAL, PERSONAL AND MIXED (London, J. Butterworth 1821); JOHN FREDERICK ARCHBOLD, A SUMMARY OF THE LAW RELATIVE TO PLEADING AND EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES (London, R. Pheney et al. 1822).
为了与第一和第二部分讨论相一致，我在这里称之为排除口头传闻规则（the rule against oral hearsay）。
See, e.g., 1 LOFFT, supra note 22, at 279-80 (嫡亲、家属关系、血统、时效、风俗、一般声誉、 临终陈述); 1 MORGAN, supra note 239, at 433 (早先一致和非一致的陈述).
2 POTHIER, supra note 246, at 284-87; PHILLIPPS, supra note 247, at 202-04.
See GILBERT, supra note 19, at 107-08; INTRODUCTION, supra note 238, at 417.
2 LOFFT, supra note 22, at 890.
PEAKE, supra note 242, at 7.
2 POTHIER, supra note 246, at 283. 有趣的是注意，尽管现代证据法中许多内容都归咎于陪审团，see, e.g., THAYER, supra note 1, at 235-36, 但只有斯达克的著作在我们所说这一时期的末期将传闻强调为对那些“对司法证明性质不甚熟悉”的外行人的一个特殊难题。1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 45.早期的论述者——特别是那些将目光集中在缺少宣誓的那些人——在描述传闻的不确定性和缺乏可靠性时对法官和陪审团并未加以区分。See, e.g., GILBERT, supra note 19, at 107-08; INTRODUCTION, supra note 238, at 417-19; 1 LOFFT, supra note 22, at 279-81; 2 LOFFT, supra note 22, at 889-91.
一个更为详细的讨论see Gallanis, supra note 37, at V-1 to V-80.
在该样本中在1754年至1779年之间只有四个案件提及传闻问题：Rex v. Brasier, 1 Leach 199, 168 Eng. Rep. 202 (1779); Goodright d. Stevens v. Moss, 2 Cowp. 591, 98 Eng. Rep. 1257 (K.B. 1777); Sayre v. Henry, BT no. 325 (1776); Wright d. Clymer v. Littler, 1 W. Black. 345, 96 Eng. Rep. 192 (K.B. 1761) (在3 Burr. 1244, 97 Eng. Rep. 812也报告过).
See, e.g., Wright, 1 W. Black. at 346, 96 Eng. Rep. at 192.
See Goodright d. Stevens, 2 Cowp. at 594, 98 Eng. Rep. at 1259 (嫡亲和家谱); Wright, 1 W. Black. at 346, 96 Eng. Rep. at 192 (临终陈述).
Sayre, BT no. 325, at 18.
在该样本中，1754年至1779年间在中央法院听审的案件中只有两个案件提出传闻问题：Wright, 1 W. Black. 345, 96 Eng. Rep. 192, and Goodright d. Stevens, 2 Cowp. 591, 168 Eng. Rep. 202.
应该指出的是，某些种类的传闻被毫无争议地采纳了。在民事案件中，这些传闻包括当事人双方及其利害关系人所作出的不利于己的承认或者声明。See, e.g., Sayre, BT no. 325, at 14; Cecil, BT no. 290, at 15; Barttelot, BT no. 291, at 56. 当对这些陈述的采信引起争议时，这种争议也不是以传闻证据排除规则为基础。See, e.g., Alban v. Pritchett, 6 T.R. 680, 101 Eng. Rep. 769 (1796) (质疑妻子的承认能否约束丈夫); Bauerman v. Radenius, 7 T.R. 663, 101 Eng. Rep. 1186 (1798) (质疑作出承认的人是否为真实的利害关系人)。而在刑事案件中，证人通常证明刑事被告所作的陈述或者证明他们已经“听到的”有关刑事被告的声誉。来自1780 OBSP的诸多例子see Rex v. McCormick, no. 45, at 59; Rex v. Walker, no. 50, at 74, 76; Rex v. Cullen, no. 65, at 81-82.
See, e.g., Barttelot v. Hawker, BT no. 291 (1790), at 42; Brown v. Phoenix Assurance Co., BT no. 896 (1789), at 29; Doe d. Mellish v. Rankin, BT no. 106 (1786), at 144-45; In re Arkwright, BT no. 560 (1785), at 160; Rex v. Mills, OBSP January 1785, no. 253, 291, 291 (裁定一位证人毫无证据，该证人声称因为其主人这么说了所以他知道那些方向); Sidney v. Perry, BT no. 614 (1782), at 13; Rex v. Gould, OBSP January 1780, no. 46, 61, 61; Rex v. Hall, OBSP January 1780, no. 83, 110, 113 (禁止一名证人陈述另一人在一次对偷盗木材的指控中所说的话)。
See, e.g., Rex v. Dingler, 2 Leach 561, 563, 168 Eng. Rep. 383, 384 (1791); Rex v. Woodcock, 1 Leach 500, 503-04, 168 Eng. Rep. 352, 353-54 (1789); Rex v. Radbourne, 1 Leach 457, 461-62, 168 Eng. Rep. 330, 332-33 (1787); Rex v. Drummond, 1 Leach 337, 337-38, 168 Eng. Rep. 271, 272 (1784).
See, e.g., Rex v. Parker, 3 Dougl. 242, 244, 99 Eng. Rep. 634, 635 (K.B. 1783).
See, e.g., Bateman v. Bailey, 5 T.R. 512, 513, 101 Eng. Rep. 288, 288 (K.B. 1794) (裁决说一个破产者不能被传唤为证人来证明他的破产，但“他在为自己的行为辩解时所说的话可以被采纳为证据”)。
See, e.g., Inhabitants of St. Sepulchre, 4 Dougl. At 388, 99 Eng. Rep. at 911; Inhabitants of Eriswell, 3 T.R. at 707-08, 100 Eng. Rep. at 815-16.
See, e.g., Foley, v. Henry, BT no. 306 (1785), at 21; Cecil v. Sneyd, BT no. 290 (1790), at 19-20.
See, e.g., Morewood v. Wood, 14 East 327, 329-30, 104 Eng. Rep. 626, 628-29 (K.B. 1791). 这个案子的另一个报道, see 4 T.R. 157, 100 Eng. Rep. 948-49 (1791).
|
