[32]
I must however express the
strongest disapproval of the practice of sending a
suborned witness to sit on the benches of the opposing party, in order that on being called into the
witness-box from that quarter he may thereby do all
the more damage to the case for the accused by
speaking against the party with whose adherents he
was sitting or, while appearing to help him by his
testimony, deliberately giving his evidence in such
an extravagant and exaggerated manner, as not only
to detract from the credibility of his own statements, but to annul the advantage derived from
the evidence of those who were really helpful. I
mention this practice not with a view to encourage
it, but to secure its avoidance.
Documentary evidence is not frequently in conflict
with oral. Such a circumstance may be turned to
advantage by either side. For one party will rest
its case on the fact that the witness is speaking on
oath, the other on the unanimity of the signatories.1
1 An over-statement, since in many cases the signatories could only testify that the statement was that actually made by the deponent; with its truth they were not necessarily concerned.
Quintilian. With An English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1921.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.