OATH vs. Oath Jurisprudence is much like Legere and R v. W(D). 2+2, -1+5,3+1 and 7-3 all add up to 4. It is Another way to communicate the jurisprudence of R v. W(D) rather. It is not new jurisprudence. It is based on the same principle as R v. Legere(1995). OATH vs. Oath Jurisprudence is much like Legere and R v. W(D). 2+2, -1+5,3+1 and 7-3 all add up to 4. It is Another way to communicate the jurisprudence of R v. W(D) rather. It is not new jurisprudence. It is based on the same principle as R v. Legere(1995). See this analysis again in Sklar v. Borys, 1917 CanLII 121 (SK QB). This is summarised again in the following. The Oath vs. Oath jurisprudence is seen in the UK legal tradition dating back to 1877 in the case of Anderson v. Titmas(1877): Young v. Kershaw (1899), 81 L.T. 531 (which was followed in Varette’s case; see Varette v. Sainsbury) Smith L.J., stated at p. 532: “Further, it would only amount to oath against oath, and that is not enough,” as was pointed out in Anderson v. Titmas (1877), 36 L.T. 711, by Huddleston, B.

OATH vs. Oath Jurisprudence is much like Legere and R v. W(D).   2+2, -1+5,3+1 and 7-3 all add up to 4. It is Another way to communicate the jurisprudence of  R v. W(D) rather.  It is not new jurisprudence.  It is based on the same principle as R v.  Legere(1995). 

OATH vs. Oath Jurisprudence is much like Legere and R v. W(D).   2+2, -1+5,3+1 and 7-3 all add up to 4. It is Another way to communicate the jurisprudence of  R v. W(D) rather.  It is not new jurisprudence.  It is based on the same principle as R v.  Legere(1995).  See this analysis again in

Sklar v. Borys, 1917 CanLII 121 (SK QB).  This is summarised again in the following.

The Oath vs. Oath jurisprudence is seen in the UK legal tradition dating back to 1877 in the case of Anderson v. Titmas(1877):  Young v. Kershaw (1899), 81 L.T. 531 (which was followed in Varette’s case; see Varette v. Sainsbury) Smith L.J., stated at p. 532: “Further, it would only amount to oath against oath, and that is not enough,” as was pointed out in Anderson v. Titmas (1877), 36 L.T. 711, by Huddleston, B.