|
Rex. v. Nichols otherwise Pryer, OBSP October 1755, no. 373, at 332.
See, e.g., Rex v. Golden et al., OBSP April 1755, nos. 198-201, at 183 (交付监禁); Rex v. Philips, OBSP September 1755, nos. 363-364, at 325 (先前的犯罪记录).
See, e.g., Rex v. Clark, OBSP July 1755, no. 254, at 225; Rex v. Souther otherwise Keys, OBSP December 1755, no. 22, at 10.
See, e.g., Rex v. Robertson, OBSP July 1755, nos. 283-84, at 252 (潜逃的帮凶); Rex v. Reddy, OBSP September 1755, nos. 302-03, at 271 (根据证人所说，仆人还太小以至于无法作证).
Rex v. Bradford, OBSP July 1755, no. 267, at 232 (温伍德（Winwood）证明了有关“某人”所说的); Rex v. Hillyard, OBSP July 1755, no. 292, at 258 (指出奈特（Knight）证明了有关“某位先生”所告诉他的话).
See, e.g., Rex v. Matthews, OBSP April 1755, no. 164, at 152-53 (证人为已故者三天前的话提供了证明); Rex v. Safter, OBSP September 1755, nos. 330-32, at 280 (证人声称一位将死之人叫出了其袭击者的名字。).
Rex v. Carrol, OBSP October 1755, no. 394, at 358-59.
Rex v. Adcock otherwise Alcock, OBSP May 1755, no. 208, at 186-87; Rex v. Pool otherwise Easterby, OBSP May 1755, no. 217, at 191-92; Rex v. Folks, OBSP September 1755, no. 312, at 272-73; Rex v. Williams, OBSP October 1755, no. 378, at 336.
对18世纪证据法的不一致性所作的一个杰出研究，see Oldham, Truth-Telling, supra note 13, at 97-117.
See, e.g., Rex v. Bear, 14 Ryder N.B. 30, 31 (1755).
See, e.g., Rex v. Gift, OBSP January 1755, no. 66, at 55; Haines otherwise Hales, OBSP February/March 1755, nos. 96-97, at 83; Rex v. Billion, OBSP September 1755, no. 333, at 286. 一个例外是 Rex v. Morris, OBSP July 1755, nos. 265-66, at 230-31.
Rex v. Moody, OBSP January 1755, no. 76, at 65 (记录说被告的雇主被问到被告能否“区分善与恶”)。
Rex v. Brown, OBSP December 1755, no. 39, at 34.
我的意思并非指学术研究的完全空白，see, e.g., CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE IN VICTORIAN ENGLAND (1997), 但19世纪早期在任何一方面还未吸引着接近于在18世纪八十年代所集中的注意力。有关19世纪早期证据法的最新作品是由弗里德曼教授和麦克奈尔博士所勾画出的传闻规则的演变。See Richard Friedman and Michael R.T. Macnair, The Emergence of Hearsay Law (June 23, 1996) (未刊稿, 作者存稿). (我对弗里德曼教授赠送本文的复印件深表谢意)。该文正确地将威格摩尔的著作视为“权威的历史纪录”。Id. at I-1.
1 WIGMORE, supra note 8, at 238.
Id. at 237-38. 一个扩展的讨论和评论, see Gallanis, supra note 8, at 85-90.
1 WIGMORE, supra note 8, at 238.
THOMAS STARKIE, A PRACTICAL TREATISE OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, AND DIGEST OF PROOFS IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS (London, J. & W.T. Clarke 1824).
Id. at 39.
Id. at 40.
Id. at 41.
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 45.
Id. at 47.
* “确切事实”规则是指与争吵、碰撞或类似事件同时且自发做出的反应，由于具有一定程度的内在可信性，允许作为证据提出。作为传闻规则的例外，说出的话语、表达的思想和作出的手势必须在时间上和本质上与发生的事情紧密联系，构成事情的一部分。此项规则不但指诉讼当事人的反应，而且在一定程度上包括旁观者和诉讼当事人的陈述。参见薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》，法律出版社2003年版，第1188页。——译者注
Id. at 47-50.
Id. at 50.
Id.
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 55-68.
Id. at 69-72.
Id. at 72-73.
Id. at 46.
Id. at 74-75.
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 80.
Id. 但是，非常重要的是必须指出对基督教的信仰绝非必要的；犹太教徒、穆斯林、佛教徒或者“任何教派的人”都有资格作证。Id. at 81.在每一种情形下，法庭将改变誓言的形式以使其根据证人个人的信仰和背景而变得非常庄严；甚至连剑桥大学的被录取新生也存在着一种特殊的誓言。Id. at 82. (对于剑桥的成员来说，“so help you God”这些词将为“sic te adjuvet Deus et sancta Dei evangelia.”所取代。 Id. at 82-83 n.z.)
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 83-84.
Id. at 88. 但是，该规则仅仅适用于金钱的或其它“法律”利益；家庭的或者“天然的”联系，比如像主仆之间的关系，在很大程度上并不能阻止证人作证（在这里其中一个例外是夫妻之间的关系，法律将他们视为同一人）Id. at 85.注意，释放的执行可能使先前有利益关系的证人的作证成为可能。Id. at 87.
Id. at 101.
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 96.从而，没有机会进行交叉询问所作的宣誓证言（deposition）和讯问证言（examination）是不可采的，与任何陌生人的声明、记载和行为一样。后一规则的一个例外与临终陈述相关，即便如此也是限制在非常有限的情形下；只有在声明者已经“生命垂危并出于对即将死亡的恐惧”的情况下——在这些情形下声明者被认为不可能撒谎，此类声明才能得以采纳。Id. at 101.
Id. at 108.
Id. at 108-09.
Id. at 121-22.
Id. at 123-27. 有关现代的稀释规则（watered-down rule）, see CROSS & TAPPER, supra note 5, at 282-84.
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 127-28; CROSS & TAPPER, supra note 5, at 543-46.
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 128-29; CROSS & TAPPER, supra note 5, at 286-89.
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 132; CROSS & TAPPER, supra note 5, at 284.
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 133; cf. generally, CROSS & TAPPER, supra note 5, at 318-20.
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 133; cf. generally, CROSS & TAPPER, supra note 5, at 318-20.
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 145-49.
Id. at 138-44.
See generally, id. at 150-374.
See, id. at 152-54 (印章), 330-32 (署名证人).
See, id. at 152-60.
为某一目的而非其它目的而采纳书证的一个例子，see 1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 321 (私人纪录不能作为其制作者的证据，但却可以作为反对利益的声明被采纳来反对他自己。)。
Id. at 380.
Id. at 381.
Id. at 381 n.z.
Id. at 381.
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 381-82.
Id. at 381-84.
Id. at 389.
Id. at 389-90.
Id. at 392-93.
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 391.
Id. at 392.
See generally, id. at 430-34.
其讨论, see 1 BAKER JOHN SELLON, THE PRACTICE OF THE COURTS OF KING''S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS 485-86 (London, A. Strahan & W. Woodfall, 1792).
其背景, see JOHN H. BAKER, AN INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH LEGAL HISTORY 157-59 (3d ed. 1990) .
|
