|
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 435. See generally, BAKER, INTRODUCTION, supra note 168, at 100-01. 同一时间美国的做法，see Renee B. Lettow, New Trial for Verdict Against Law: Judge-Jury Relations in Early Nineteenth Century America, 71 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 505 (1996).
1 SELLON, supra note 167, at 486, 501-20.
1 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 436; 其例子可以参见下文注所援引的案件。
Id. at 431 n.o (异议诉状); see JOHN H. BAKER, THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND THE COMMON LAW: HISTORICAL ESSAYS 298-301 (1986) (讨论了刑事案件中错误的矫正).在这里应该指出轻罪案件中对新的审判的动议是被允许的. See, e.g., Rex v. Parker, 3 Dougl. 242-43, 99 Eng. Rep. 634, 634 (K.B. 1783) (伪证); Rex v. Almon, 5 Burr. 2686, 2690, 98 Eng. Rep. 411, 413 (K.B. 1770) (诽谤); Rex v. White, 1 Burr. 333, 334, 97 Eng. Rep. 338, 339 (K.B. 1757) (财产损害). 有关这些犯罪作为轻罪的情况， see 4 BLACKSTONE, supra note 21, at 136-38 (伪证), 150-51 (诽谤), 167 (财产损害).
2 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 1.
See generally, 2 & 3 STARKIE, supra note 119.
2 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 364-75.
Id. at 365. 一种非常不同的现代立场, see CROSS & TAPPER, supra note 5, at 346-53.
2 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 369.
See 3 STARKIE, supra note 119, at 1753-58.
See supra Part I.C.
1 WIGMORE, supra note 8, at 238.
一些读者会奇怪为什么该考察焦点涵盖了不止一年。其原因很简单。在没有赖德笔记或者伦敦中央刑事法院庭审纪录（见附录中的描述）的情况下，有必要扩展该焦点以便涵盖足够多的证据从而使我关于民事和刑事审判的论述能获得有力的支持。即便通过这五年期限，所能获得的刑事审判报告依然相当稀少，以至于我对于此类审判中证据法的论述有可能被描述为试验性的。参见下文注及所附文献。
我在本部分的评论以《英国法律报告》为基础，在该报告中，1820-1824年包括了大概800个来自王座法院的案件报告和395个来自高等民事法院的案件报告。有关署名法律报告和《英国法律报告》参见附录。
此一方面的例子举不胜举。有关来自王座法院的一个样本， see Lingard v. Messiter, 1 B. & C. 308, 107 Eng. Rep. 115 (K.B. 1823); Rivers v. Griffiths, 5 B. & Ald. 630, 106 Eng. Rep. 1321 (K.B. 1822); Doe d. Lloyd v. Deakin, 4 B. & Ald. 433 K.B., 106 Eng. Rep. 995 (K.B. 1821); Doe d. Grimes v. Gooch, 3 B. & Ald. 664, 106 Eng. Rep. 804 (K.B. 1820).有关来自高等民事法院的一个样本, see Lester v. Kemp, 2 Bing. 30, 130 Eng. Rep. 215 (C.P. 1824); Glasier v. Eve, 1 Bing. 209, 130 Eng. Rep. 85 (C.P. 1823); Calder v. Rutherford, 3 Brod. & B. 302, 129 Eng. Rep. 1301 (C.P. 1822); Stafford v. Hamston, 2 Brod. & B. 691, 129 Eng. Rep. 1133 (C.P. 1821).
See, e.g., Edwards v. Evans, 3 East 451, 102 Eng. Rep. 670 (K.B. 1803) (当某一被传唤证明某一事实的证人因为“不适格”而招致否决而另一位证人已经证实了同样的事实时，拒绝准予新的审判); Tyrwhitt v. Wynne, 2 B. & Ald. 554, 106 Eng. Rep. 468 (K.B. 1819) (在一个未被执行（unexecuted）的契约尽管被采纳为证据却被赋予极其微弱的证明力的情形下，拒绝准予新的审判)。
See Freeman v. Arkell, 2 B. & C. 493, 107 Eng. Rep. 467 (1824); Kine v. Beaumont, 3 Brod. & B. 288, 129 Eng. Rep. 1295 (K.B. 1822); Burt v. Walker, 4 B. & Ald. 697, 106 Eng. Rep. 1092 (K.B. 1821); Rex v. Hunt, 3 B. & Ald. 566, 106 Eng. Rep. 768 (1820); Brewster v. Sewall, 3 B. & Ald. 296, 106 Eng. Rep. 672 (K.B. 1820); Hunt v. Andrews, 3 B. & Ald. 341, 106 Eng. Rep. 688 (K.B. 1820).
See Jones v. Simpson, 2 B. & C. 318, 107 Eng. Rep. 402 (1823); Warren v. Howe, 2 B. & C. 281, 107 Eng. Rep. 388 (1823); Boase v. Jackson, 3 Brod. & B. 185, 129 Eng. Rep. 1254 (1822); Boone v. Mitchell, 1 B. & C. 18, 107 Eng. Rep. 8 (1822); Coates v. Perry, 3 Brod. & B. 48, 129 Eng. Rep. 1200 (K.B. 1821); Williams v. Sawyer, 3 Brod. & B. 70, 129 Eng. Rep. 1208 (1821); Rex v. Inhabitants of Skeffington, 3 B. & Ald. 382, 106 Eng. Rep. 702 (1820).
See Walmsley v. Abbott, 3 B. & C. 218, 107 Eng. Rep. 715 (1824); Drake v. Marryat, 1 B. & C. 473, 107 Eng. Rep. 175 (1823); Wynne v. Tyrwhitt, 4 B. & Ald. 376, 106 Eng. Rep. 975 (1821).
See Richadson v. Mellish, 2 Bing. 229, 130 Eng. Rep. 294 (1824); Goss v. Watlington, 3 Brod. & B. 132, 129 Eng. Rep. 1233 (1822).
See Stewart v. Lawton, 1 Bing. 374, 130 Eng. Rep. 151 (1823); Orr v. Morice, 3 Brod.& B. 139, 129 Eng. Rep. 1235 (1821).
一个例外是Sells v. Hoare, 3 Brod. & B. 232, 129 Eng. Rep. 1272 (K.B. 1822), 该案判决说一个犹太教证人手按在福音书上所作宣誓并未赋予败诉方提起新的审判的权利；法庭裁定说，这样一种宣誓不仅具有道德上的约束力，而且由于对伪证的民事制裁的存在使得证人没有虚假作证的空间。
最主要的案子是 Bent v. Baker, 3 T.R. 27, 100 Eng. Rep. 437 (K.B. 1789).
See Evans v. Yeatherd, 2 Bing. 133, 130 Eng. Rep. 256 (1824) (由于该当事人在结果上具有直接利益而适用该规则); Moody v. King, 2 B. & C. 558, 107 Eng. Rep. 491 (1824) (因为其并非一种合伙事务而拒绝适用该规则); Doddington v. Hudson, 1 Bing. 257, 130 Eng. Rep. 104 (1823) (因为证人对裁决没有利害关系而拒绝适用该规则); Upton v. Curtis, 1 Bing. 210, 130 Eng. Rep. 85 (1823) (因为证人在结果上具有一种直接利益而适用该规则); Morgan v. Pryor, 2 B. & C. 14, 107 Eng. Rep. 288 (1823) (因为破产者并未完全适格而拒绝适用该规则); Bunter v. Warre, 1 B. & C. 689, 107 Eng. Rep. 253 (1823) (因为双方是共同承租人而拒绝适用该规则); Hunter v. King, 4 B. & Ald. 209, 106 Eng. Rep. 914 (1821) (因为该当事人对于裁决无利害关系而拒绝适用该规则); Ward v. Wilkinson, 4 B. & Ald. 410, 106 Eng. Rep. 987 (1821) (因为证人是适格的而且其证词不会影响对其有利的裁决，所以适用该规则)。
Tomlinson v. Wilkes, 2 Brod. & B. 397, 129 Eng. Rep. 1020 (C.P. 1821); Carter v. Abbott, 1 B. & C. 444, 107 Eng. Rep. 165 (K.B. 1823).
See Doe d. Sutton v. Ridgway, 4 B. & Ald. 53, 106 Eng. Rep. 868 (K.B. 1820); Rex v. Mead, 2 B. & C. 605, 107 Eng. Rep. 509 (K.B. 1824).
See Doe d. Sutton v. Ridgway, 4 B. & Ald. 53, 106 Eng. Rep. 868; Johnson v. Lawson, 2 Bing. 86, 130 Eng. Rep. 237 (C.P. 1824).
See Doe d. Human v. Pettett, 5 B. & Ald. 223, 106 Eng. Rep. 1174 (K.B. 1821).
See Rogers v. Jones, 3 B. & C. 409, 107 Eng. Rep. 785 (K.B. 1824).
See Gurney v. Langlands, 5 B. & Ald. 330, 106 Eng. Rep. 1212 (K.B. 1822).
See Cromack v. Heathcote, 2 Brod. & B. 4, 129 Eng. Rep. 857 (1820); Bramwell v. Lucas, 2 B. & C. 745, 107 Eng. Rep. 560 (K.B. 1824).
See Clifford v. Burton, 1 Bing. 199, 130 Eng. Rep. 81 (C.P. 1823).
我在这一部分上的论述主要以《英国法律报告》为基础，该报告包含了1820-1824年之间在初审法院审判的约470个报告。
此方面的例子举不胜举. 相关的一个样本, see Williams v. Munnings, Ry. & Mood. 18, 171 Eng. Rep. 928 (K.B. 1824); Richardson v. Mellish, Ry. & Mood. 65, 171 Eng. Rep. 945 (K.B. 1824); Walmisley v. Abbot, 1 Car. & At. 309, 171 Eng. Rep. 1208 (K.B. 1824); Lacon v. Higgins, 3 Stark. 178, 171 Eng. Rep. 813 (K.B. 1822); Carlile v. Parkins, 3 Stark. 163, 171 Eng. Rep. 809 (K.B. 1822); Wihen v. Law, 3 Stark. 63, 171 Eng. Rep. 768; (K.B. 1821).
See, e.g., Doe d. Smith v. Cartwright, 1 Car. & P. 218, 171 Eng. Rep. 1169 (1824) (在 Ry. & Mood. 62, 171 Eng. Rep. 944也报告过); Hawkins v. Howard, 1 Car. & P. 222, 171 Eng. Rep. 1170 (K.B. 1824); Alexander v. Brown, 1 Car. & P. 288, 171 Eng. Rep. 1199 (K.B. 1824).
|
