The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1911-06-30
THE JUDICIAL OATH

any degree of regularity can go away
without the full knowledge that the
principals and witnesses who are
sworn to testify before these tribu-
rails to tell ''the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth pay yery
little regard to the sacredness of the
oath which is administered to them.
Notwithstanding the fact that the at
torneys on both sides are constantly
reminding them that they are on their
oaths. AS often as this is done, ard
it is done in nearly every case, cre
knows, without being told, that the
lawyer who reminds him of the fact
either knows or suspects that the wit
ness is lying.
The oath itself is administered in
a perfunctory manner, and without
any degree of solemnity, as if the Of
ficer puts those about him on notice
that it is a farce and a mockery.
We are not to be told that there
are certain cases that are sometimes.
though rarely, in our courts where the
witness lies like a gentleman" and
to do otherwise he would dishonor
himself more than in paying heed to
his oath.
Mr. Isaac Allen, a member of the
New York bar, in an article in the
T,ro TOoI~o- op+-+In1 ..Tbo no+I, -,
Jewish Jurisprudence, says that an
oath was never administered in the
Jewish Jurisprudence in a case where
the contentious of the parties to an
action were so contradictory that per
jury would be inevitable for anyone
at all familiar with human nature
knows that one who would violate the
ninth commandment, which says:
Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor," would not hes
itate to violate the third command
ment, viz: Thou shalt not take the
name of the Lord, thy God, in vain"
In the Jewish Jurisprudence Mr. Al
len tells us that the Biblical oath was
imposed upon the defendant only, and
then only in the following three in
stances:
% Oath of a Custodian. A leaves
certain objects in the care of B. B
admits having received them. but
claims that they have been stolen, or
lost He takes an oath in support of
his assertion, and is acquitted from
liability. Elk. xii, :.
90 Part Admittance. A claims to
have lent B 100 shekels. B admits
the claim to the extent of only so:
there being no other evidence on eth
er side. B must then take an oath,
and is acquitted. But if B denies the
claim in it's entirety, he is acquitted
without an oath; for the burden OF
proof rests upon A. the plaintiff, and
his bare assertion. which is entirely
denied, is not sufficient to impose AMI
oath upon B, the defendant.
CD One Witness But, if A has
one witness in support of his claim,
while it is not sufficient to sustain
judgment in his favor 1.-TWO witnesses
being necessary, it is sufficient, how
ever, to put B on his oath.
The admission of B in cases 1 and
,, and the statement of one witness in
case 8, are considered in the nature
of half evidence in support of A, but
not as sufficient to warrant a judg-
ment in his favor B therefore takes
an oath, which is also equal to half
and thereby successfully re-
butts the claim of A
Later, says Mr. Allen, the Talmu-
dists extended the oath to other cases.
But in no case have they permitted
an oath where perjury would be inevi-
table. To still further guard the
sanctity of an oath, they even permit
ted to shift the oath in some instances
from the defendant to the plaintiff
as, for instance, in a case where the
uSLSuu1uI > reputation LOT NeFdClLy
was not of the best. and therefore be-
came incompetent to take an oath, or
where the plaintiffs claim had a
greater probability OF truth than the
defendants disclaimer.
The whole trend of the Rabbinical
law was to preserve the oath invio-
late.
Mr. Allen concludes his article as
follows:
In Jewish law it could never hap
pen that, after an oath had been adj
to witness, his testimony
should be disregarded by the court |
A statement under oath always estab- |
lished fact, and was therefore con-
elusive upon the judges; else no oath
would be given.
The fallacy of our system is to !
swear every witness, and knowingly |
permit good many to commit per-