|
伯克利·皮里吉（Berkeley Peerage）案件，4 Camp. 401, 171 Eng. Rep. 128 (H.L. 1811)，并未被包含在这些统计数据当中，这是因为该案件是在上议院而不是在某一家中央皇家法院展开辩论的。但该案件仍然是有关传闻规则的一个重要案件，在本文第三部分的准备材料之中它已经被考虑在内。该脚注能使得读者不至得出该案件被忽略的结论。
See GUIDE, supra note 328, at 125-26. 对于亨利·巴尼斯和乔治·威尔松报告而言稍作修正是恰当的，这两者都被列在王座法院标题（heading）之下的指引（Guide）之中。巴尼斯完全集中于高等民事法院；而威尔松报告了几个王座法院案件，在本文所涵盖的年份中，他并未这么做。
Wright d. Clymer v. Littler, 1 W. Black. 345, 96 Eng. Rep. 192 (1761); Goodright d. Stevens v. Moss, 2 Cowp. 591, 98 Eng. Rep. 1257 (1777); Rex v. Parker, 3 Dougl. 242, 99 Eng. Rep. 634 (1783); Rex v. Inhabitants of St. Sepulchre, 4 Dougl. 336, 99 Eng. Rep. 910 (1785); Denn d. Goodwin v. Spray, 1 T.R. 466, 99 Eng. Rep. 1201 (1786); Davies v. Pierce, 2 T.R. 53, 100 Eng. Rep. 30 (1787); Rex v. Inhabitants of Eriswell, 3 T.R. 707, 100 Eng. Rep. 815 (1790); Morewood v. Wood, 14 East 327, 104 Eng. Rep. 626 (1791); Barry v. Bebbington, 4 T.R. 514, 100 Eng. Rep. 1149 (1792); Stead v. Heaton, 4 T.R. 669, 100 Eng. Rep. 1235 (1792); Outram v. Morewood, 5 T.R. 121, 101 Eng. Rep. 70 (1793); Bateman v. Bailey, 5 T.R. 512, 101 Eng. Rep. 288 (1794); Rex v. Inhabitants of Chadderton, 2 East 27, 102 Eng. Rep. 278 (1801); Rex v. Inhabitants of Ferry Frystone, 2 East 54, 102 Eng. Rep. 289 (1801); Rex v. Pinkerton, 2 East 357, 102 Eng. Rep. 405 (1802); Roe d. Brune v. Rawlings, 7 East 279, 103 Eng. Rep. 107 (1806); Rex v. Inhabitants of Erith, 8 East 539, 103 Eng. Rep. 450 (1807); Higham v. Ridgway, 10 East 109, 103 Eng. Rep. 717 (1808); Doe d. Webber v. Thynne, 10 East 206, 103 Eng. Rep. 753 (1808); Chapman v. Cowlan, 13 East 10, 104 Eng. Rep. 269 (1810); Doe d. Didsbury v. Thomas, 14 East 323, 104 Eng. Rep. 625 (1811); Barnes v. Mawson, 1 M. & S. 77, 105 Eng. Rep. 30 (1813); Anon v. Moor, 1 M. & S. 284, 105 Eng. Rep. 106 (1813); Weeks v. Sparke, 1 M. & S. 679, 105 Eng. Rep. 253 (1813); Freeman v. Phillipps, 4 M. & S. 486, 105 Eng. Rep. 914 (1816); Rex v. Inhabitants of Debenham, 2 B. & Ald. 185, 106 Eng. Rep. 334 (1818); Hunt v. Andrews, 3 B. & Ald. 341, 106 Eng. Rep. 688 (1820); Doe d. Sutton v. Ridgway, 4 B. & Ald. 53, 106 Eng. Rep. 858 (1820); Wynne v. Tyrwhitt, 4 B. & Ald. 376, 106 Eng. Rep. 975 (1821); Doe v. Human v. Pettett, 5 B. & Ald. 223, 106 Eng. Rep. 1174 (1821); Rex v. Mead, 2 B. & C. 605, 107 Eng. Rep. 509 (1824).
See Gallanis, supra note 37, at V-2. 通过比较的方式，我还算出了每十年王座法院报告所占用的篇幅。18世纪晚期该数据急剧增长，并且可能解释了提出传闻问题的被报告案件的一些增长。但在篇幅上增幅最快的是发生在18世纪90年代——至少在传闻案件急剧增加的五年之后，这一点意味着王座法院传闻案件的增长无法简单地通过报告的增长来解释。See id., at V-2 to V-4.
See GUIDE, supra note 328, at 125-26. 注意，乔治·威尔松、威廉·布莱克斯通爵士、约翰·厄德利·威尔默特爵士（Sir John Eardley Wilmot）和坎贝尔·洛夫特的报告——在王座法院下的指引中列名——同样包含了在高等民事法院听审的案件。.
Roe d. Pellatt v. Ferrars, 2 Bos. & Pul. 542, 126 Eng. Rep. 1429 (1801); Ivat v. Finch, 1 Taunt. 141, 127 Eng. Rep. 785 (1808); Peaceable d. Uncle v. Watson, 4 Taunt. 16, 128 Eng. Rep. 232 (1811); Thompson v. Bridges, 8 Taunt. 336, 129 Eng. Rep. 411 (1818); Goss v. Watlington, 3 Brod. & B. 132, 129 Eng. Rep. 1233 (1822); Johnson v. Lawson, 2 Bing. 86, 130 Eng. Rep. 237 (1824); Rawson v. Haigh, 2 Bing. 99, 130 Eng. Rep. 242 (1824). 这些低数据提出了一个明显的问题：为什么在高等民事法院中所提出的有关传闻的纠纷如此之少？似乎可能有两种答案。第一，当前对18世纪和19世纪诉讼样式的研究表明这一时期的大部分时间里王座法院比高等民事法院要忙得多。 See, e.g., Christopher W. Brooks, Interpersonal Conflict and Social Tension: Civil Litigation in England, 1640-1830, in THE FIRST MODERN SOCIETY 360-64 (A.L. Beier et al. eds., 1989). 从而，毫无奇怪的是前者的法官所遭遇到的传闻证据排除规则比后者的法官要频繁得多。第二、几类无在高等民事法院听审的案件似乎尤为可能提出传闻问题；比方说，在与贫民户口所在地相关的案件中传闻似乎普遍的，而这些案件却完全在王座法院听审。See, e.g., Rex v. Inhabitants of Chadderton, 2 East 27, 102 Eng. Rep. 278 (1801); Rex v. Inhabitants of Eriswell, 3 T.R. 707, 100 Eng. Rep. 815 (1790); Rex v. Inhabitants of St. Sephulchre, 4 Dougl. 336, 99 Eng. Rep. 910 (1785).
See BRITISH TRIALS 1660-1990: A GUIDE TO THE MICROFICHE EDITION, UNITS 1-3 212 (1991). 第19个案件, Maddox v. M ---- y, BT no. 303 (1754), 未被包含在样本当中，这是因为该册子是不完整的 ；在9-16页中必然包含着原告的大部分证言，但这几页却被遗漏了。
Sayre v. Henry, Earl of Rochford, BT no. 325 (1776); Sidney, Earl of Leicester v. Perry, BT no. 614 (1782); Foley v. Henry, Earl of Peterborough and Monmouth, BT no. 306 (1785); In re Arkwright, BT no. 560 (1785); Doe d. Mellish et al. v. Rankin, BT no. 106 (1786); Brown v. Phoenix Assurance Co., BT no. 896 (1789); Barttelot v. Hawker, BT no. 291 (1790); Cecil v. Sneyd, BT no. 290 (1790).
GUIDE, supra note 328, at 127.
Reed v. Passer, Peake 303, 170 Eng. Rep. 164 (1794); Withnell v. Gartham, 1 Esp. 322, 170 Eng. Rep. 371 (1795); Digby v. Stedman, 1 Esp. 328, 170 Eng. Rep. 373 (1795); Leader v. Barry, 1 Esp. 353, 170 Eng. Rep. 382 (1795); Walker v. Broadstock, 1 Esp. 458, 170 Eng. Rep. 419 (1795); Jones v. Perry, 2 Esp. 482, 170 Eng. Rep. 427 (1796); Doe d. James v. Richards, Peak Add. Cas. 180, 170 Eng. Rep. 238 (1798); Calvert v. Archbishop of Canterbury, 2 Esp. 646, 170 Eng. Rep. 484 (1798); Foulkes v. Sellway, 3 Esp. 236, 170 Eng. Rep. 599 (1800); Hoare v. Allen, 3 Esp. 276, 170 Eng. Rep. 614 (1801); Rowcroft v. Basset, Peake Add. Cas. 199, 170 Eng. Rep. 243 (1802); Goodtitle d. Braine v. Dew, Peak Add. Cas. 204, 170 Eng. Rep. 245 (1802); Robson v. Kemp, 4 Esp. 233, 170 Eng. Rep. 703 (1802); Doe d. Hindly v. Rickarby, 5 Esp. 4, 170 Eng. Rep. 718 (1803); Daniel v. Pitt, 6 Esp. 74, 170 Eng. Rep. 834 (1806); Fonsick v. Agar, 6 Esp. 92, 170 Eng. Rep. 840 (1806); Earl of Leicester v. Walter, 2 Camp. 251, 170 Eng. Rep. 1146 (1809); Hagedorn v. Reid, 3 Camp. 377, 170 Eng. Rep. 1416 (1813); Dunn v. Slee, Holt 399, 171 Eng. Rep. 284 (1816); Garr v. Fletcher, 2 Stark. 71, 171 Eng. Rep. 576 (1817); Doe d. Majoribanks v. Green, Gow 227, 171 Eng. Rep. 893 (1820); Gale v. Halfknight, 3 Stark. 56, 171 Eng. Rep. 766 (1821); Redford v. Birley, 3 Stark. 76, 171 Eng. Rep. 773 (1822); Schooling v. Lee, 3 Stark. 149, 171 Eng. Rep. 804 (1822); Scott v. Waithman, 3 Stark. 168, 171 Eng. Rep. 810 (1822); Doe d. Tilman v. Tarver, Ry. & Mood. 141, 171 Eng. Rep. 972 (1824); Doe d. Smith v. Cartwright, 1 Car. & P. 218, 171 Eng. Rep. 1179 (1824); Irving v. Greenwood, 1 Car. & P. 350, 171 Eng. Rep. 1226 (1824); Foote v. Hayne, 1 Car. & P. 545, 171 Eng. Rep. 1310 (1824).
|
