Langbein, Shaping, supra note 12, at 129; see, e.g., Rex v. Smith, OBSP July 1755, no. 268, 232, 234-35.
See, e.g., Rex v. Davis, OBSP October 1755, nos. 390-92, 349, 354.
Rex v. Newton, OBSP January 1790, no. 128, 139.
See Beattie, Scales, supra note 14, at 250-58 (描述了1836年的《刑事被告辩护
律师法案》（the Prisoner''s Counsel Act）)。
有关《英国审判》小册子诸多例子中的两个例子，see Onslow v. Horne, BT no. 59 (1770), at 5-19, 31-39; Knowles v. Gambier, BT no. 57 (1757), at 4-11, 33-39, 51-56.
关于最近的评论, see Beattie, Scales, supra note 14, at 232-36; Landsman, Contentious Spirit, supra note 15, at 548-57.
JOHN HAWKINS, THE LIFE OF SAMUEL JOHNSON LL.D. 462 (Dublin, Chambers 1787).我将本参考书和下面一本参考书归功于贝蒂教授。
PATRICK COLQUHOUN, A TREATISE ON THE POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS 31-32, 246-47 (London, H. Fry 1796).
例如, 在《年度登记本》上比尔科洛夫的讣告, CHRON., 1796, at 44 and the GENTLEMAN''S MAGAZINE 1796, at 44 几乎没有包含关于其法律执业的信息。
MASTERS OF THE BENCH OF THE HONOURABLE SOCIETY OF THE INNER TEMPLE, 1450-1883, AND MASTERS OF THE TEMPLE, 1540-1883 81 (个人印刷, 1883) (在剑桥大学图书馆获得，位于LE.7.122书架上); 1 ALUMNI CANTABRIGIENSES: PART II, 1752-1900 202 (J.A. Venn ed., 1954); THOMAS A. WALKER, ADMISSIONS TO PETERHOUSE OR S. PETER''S COLLEGE, 1615-1911 304 (1912).
1 LAW AND LAWYERS 182 (London, Longman et al. 1840) (一般认为作者为 Archer Polson) .
* 伦敦司法官由市高级市政官法庭（Court of Alderman of the City）选举产生，终身任职，是市共同体的首席顾问和首席辩护人，非经国王任命，不得实施任何司法审判权能。其职责是维持和平，执行法律，宣布审判，证实并记录市民习惯，并应邀参与政务。1772年1月1日后成为巡回法官，可在中央刑事法庭（Central Criminal Court）及其他法庭任法官。1975年后不再有下议院议员资格。参见参见薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》，法律出版社2003年版，第1159页——译者注。
1 DNB, supra note 16, at 69-70.
根据OBSP，阿代尔第一次开庭在1779年10月举行；他的最后一次开庭在1789年6月举行。
1 DNB, supra note 16, at 69; see, e.g., Brown, BT no. 896.
其生平简介, see 7 DNB, supra note 16, at 907-08; EDWARD FOSS, A BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 289-90 (London, John Murray 1870); 1 POLSON, supra note 317, at 179, 216-18. 更为晚近的评论, see Beattie, Scales, supra note 14, at 236-47.
7 DNB, supra note 16, at 908.
Beattie, Scales, supra note 14, at 237.
Id.
See BAKER, INTRODUCTION, supra note 168, at 210-11. 关于现代早期和现代法律报告的概述，see PERCY H. WINFIELD, THE CHIEF SOURCES OF ENGLISH LEGAL HISTORY 183-99 (1925).
BAKER, INTRODUCTION, supra note 168, at 211.
Id. at 466; 1 WIGMORE, supra note 8, at 238.有关初审和审判程序的概述，see BAKER, INTRODUCTION, supra note 168, at 24-26.
SWEET AND MAXWELL''S GUIDE TO LAW REPORTS AND STATUTES 125-29 (4th ed. 1962) . 留心的读者可能已经注意到我没有提到财务法院。1754年至1824年间，财务案件的报告非常零星，id. at 127,作为报告人之一，罗伯特·福里斯特自己深感悲伤。 See 13 HOLDSWORTH, supra note 8, at 429 n.9. 因此，在本文中我集中于来自王座法院和高等民事法院的署名报告，而参考威斯敏斯特的国王法院和中央皇家法院理应会将财务法院排除在外。
See Langbein, Criminal Trial, supra note 12, at 267-68.
See THE OLD BAILEY PROCEEDINGS, PARTS ONE AND TWO: A LISTING AND GUIDE TO THE HARVESTER MICROFILM COLLECTION (n.d.) at 9.
Langbein, Criminal Trial, supra note 12, at 271. 关于OBSP的用处 see also Thomas P. Gallanis, Review of Witnessing Insanity: Madness and Mad-Doctors in the English Court by Joel Peter Eigen, CAMB. L. J. Nov. 1995, at 643-44.
有关OBSP的准确性, see Langbein, Shaping, supra note 12, at 25-26.
关于来自1810年1月的一些例子, see Rex v. Anderson, no. 75, at 49; Rex v. Walters, no. 108, at 68; Rex v. Cheshire, no. 133, at 81.
有关一个类似的五年样本技巧, see Landsman, Contentious Spirit, supra note 15, at 511; Landsman, Hundred Years, supra note 15, at 448.
See Langbein, Shaping, supra note 12, at 6-8; Langbein, Evidence, supra note 12, at 1180.
有关赖德笔记的概述, see Langbein, Shaping, supra note 12, at 6-10.有关法官笔记的用处, see James Oldham, Eighteenth Century Judges'' Notes: How They Explain, Correct and Enhance the Reports, 31 AM. J. LEGAL HIST. 9 (1987). 有关法官笔记的可能起源被与中央法院动议联系起来，see BAKER, INTRODUCTION, supra note 168, at 101.
See Langbein, Evidence, supra note 12, at 1177.
See, e.g., Fisher v. Perrit, RN 13:19, 21 (1754) (赔偿金（damages）被判给“被告”而不是原告，尽管从抄本中无法辨别出错误是赖德还是佩兰犯的).
我打算为塞尔登协会整理一个赖德笔记的学术版，该任务将会涉及重新审视原初的速记手稿。
有关该全集更为详细的信息, see Thomas P. Gallanis, The Chadwyck-Healey "British Trials" Collection, 19 J. LEGAL HIST. 84, 84-87 (April 1998).
See Langbein, Evidence, supra note 12, at 1181-93.
See 1 OLDHAM, supra note 13, at 140-60.
在初审法院的常规报告始于1790年托马斯·皮克（Thomas Peake）的那些受敬重的报告。See BAKER, INTRODUCTION, supra note 168, at 466 n.55; Gallanis, supra note 8, at 85. 1754年至1824年间，刑事法院的署名报告顶多只是零星。See GUIDE, supra note 328, at 129.
