Whether Mortal
Enemies may be Admitted as Witnesses
But
if it is asked whether the Judge can admit the mortal
enemies of the prisoner to give evidence against him in
such a case, we answer that he cannot; for the same
chapter of the Canon says: You must not understand that
in this kind of charge a mortal personal enemy may be
admitted to give evidence. Henry of Segusio also makes
this quite clear. But it is mortal enemies that are
spoken of; and it is to be noted that a witness is not
necessarily to be disqualified because of every sort of
enmity. And a mortal enmity is constituted by the
following circumstances: when there is a death feud or
vendetta between the parties, or when there has been an
attempted homicide, or some serious wound or injury
which manifestly shows that there is mortal hatred on
the part of the witness against the prisoner, And in
such a case it is presumed that, just as the witness has
tried to inflict temporal death on the prisoner by
wounding him, so he will also be willing to effect his
object by accusing him of heresy; and just as he wished
to take away his life, so he would be willing to take
away his good name. Therefore the evidence of such
mortal enemies is justly disqualified.
But there are
other serious degrees of enmity (for women are easily
provoked to hatred), which need not totally disqualify a
witness, although they render his evidence very
doubtful, so that full credence cannot be placed in his
words unless they are substantiated by independent
proofs, and other witnesses supply an indubitable proof
of them. For the Judge must ask the prisoner whether he
thinks that he has any enemy who would dare to accuse
him of that crime out of hatred, so that he might
compass his death; and if he says that he has, he shall
ask who that person is; and then the Judge shall take
note whether the person named as being likely to give
evidence from motives of malice has actually done so.
And if it is found that this is the case, and the Judge
has learned from trustworthy men the cause of that
enmity, and if the evidence in question is not
substantiated by other proofs and the words of other
witnesses, then he may safely reject such evidence. But
if the prisoner says that he hopes he has no such enemy,
but admits that he has had quarrels with women; or if he
says that he has an enemy, but names someone who,
perhaps, has not given evidence, in that case, even if
other witnesses say that such a person has given
evidence from motives of enmity, the Judge must not
reject his evidence, but admit it together with the
other proofs.
There are
many who are not sufficiently careful and circumspect,
and consider that the depositions of such quarrelsome
women should be altogether rejected, saying that no
faith can be placed in them, since they are nearly
always actuated by motives of hatred. Such men are
ignorant of the subtlety and precautions of magistrates,
and speak and judge like men who are colour-blind. But
these precautions are dealt with in Questions XI and
XII.
|