mean by value ? The best answer that I can find is in Wigmore on Evidence 'When the condto of others indicating the nature ... qualified answer, limited by its concept of remoteness. Again, I quote from Wigmore. At page 504 of the same value he says ' . . .the value
made by Wall to a number of leading authorities on Evidence like Wigmore and McCormick. Wall explains the two types ofidentification, described in American parlance ... this question we may nowrefer to what another scholar of great reknown, Wigmore (as distinguished from Glanville William), has to say on this question,Wigmore
unquestionably within public knowledge, (see Taylor 11th edn. pp. 3-12; Wigmore sec 2571 footnote; Stephen's Digest, notes to Article 58; Whitley Stokes
opportunity at all to cross-examine is nto admissible.
(11) Wigmore has laid down the following principle in dealing with the statement of a witness
thus acting against settled notions of jurisprudence and fair trial.
(19) Wigmore on Evidence Vol. v. Third Edition Article 1367 (page 29) has highlighted
Phipson's Evidence, 7th Edn., p. 546;
Wigmore's Evidence, p. 2406.)... ... ...."
(emphasis supplied)
33. The Court further observed that
possession of the plaintiffs in between also ought to be
presumed. Wigmore on Evidence is cited to contend that
"subsequent and earlier prove
Phipson Evidence 7 th Edn. p.
546; Wigmore's Evidence p. 2406.)"
Secondly, it is noteworthy that the defendant admits execution
page 201.
ITA 41/2002 Page 29 of 68
26. Wigmore on Evidence, 1981, Vol-9, para 2461, agrees that
there is a paradigm shift
Jaipur Golden Gas Victims Association vs Uoi & Ors. on 23 October, 2009
Author: Manmohan
