Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 28

= March 28 =

Cottages at Winehaven
In what year where the cottages at Winehaven, California/Point Molate Naval Fuel Depot built? Where they built by the Navy or Winery? And for what purpose to house winery workers or naval personnel71.142.67.171 (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

pHOTo
Where is the place in slide 33?96.53.149.117 (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * this links to gmail login, try again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.192.120 (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, it's a link to an image that is attached in an e-mail. Obviously, no one can actually view it unless they log in to the Gmail account that holds the e-mail. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's an image that's been emailed to you then you'll need to download it from your Gmail account, then upload it to a photo-hosting service (such as Flickr or Photobucket) - post the link to the image and we'll try and help. Exxolon (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or you could post your password here. —Tamfang (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not post your password here. That is a bad idea as anyone could hijack your account, read your mail, and impersonate you. Sifaka   talk  22:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, you're no fun. —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Only because people don't know better, and it's mean to knowingly give someone bad advice if there is a chance they might fall for it. It's one thing to rickroll someone, but someone's personal, health, and financial information could be contained in one's email inbox. You would be pretty pissed if your bank account got emptied, you lost all your credit, and you began getting harassed by debt collectors 24-7 because I gave you some insincere advice that you took seriously. I'm glad you know what you are doing on the internet, but don't assume everyone else does. (Edit) I don't mean to sound harsh. Think of it as a friendly reminder that someone could take you seriously and then blame you for it.  Sifaka   talk  00:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Company
Where is this from?96.53.149.117 (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging by the signs attached to the machine, I would guess the photo was taken in Finland.
 * Böwe is a German company. Their website is http://www.boewe-tc.de/intro/home.htm  --  Astronaut (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Development Potential
what does it mean to say one has a development potential? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.222.232.54 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If the phrase is used to describe a person, it generally means that while that person has not yet achieved a certain measure or degree of skill or experience, he/she has the innate ability (potential) to develop into that measure or degree of skill or experience. It is usually said of young people and the "development" frequently refers to a period of more schooling, practice or exposure. // BL \\ (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Or that a person has some physical or psychological characteristic necessary for a task, but is perhaps missing some specific skills. A very tall person has development potential for playing basketball, but will likely need some practice.NByz (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Admissable evidence in court?
What exactly is considered "admissible evidence" and what isn't? Is there any webpage listing examples? Specifically, can a letter of testimony on behalf of the plantiff be considered admissible? -- 99.228.46.217 (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What country and what field of law? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ontario Small Claims Court, in Canada, but I assume it would be similar to the British and American systems. --  99.228.46.217 (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As an anonymous user on a text-only connection I can't post a working URL here, but at www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/guides/ you will find a series of PDF documents meant as guides for people suing in Small Claims Court. If the information you want is on the web, that would be the likely place for it.  --Anonymous, 19:47 UTC, March 28, 2009.
 * Thanks for pointing this site out, but those pages don't specifically address what is and isn't admissible evidence. And while there's a ton of pages in general on the site about admissible evidence, none seems to answer my question. --  99.228.46.217 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Testimony from a person not then in court is usually taken in the form of an affidavit. Whether or not what you have would be suitable if sworn is not something I can judge. Here is a connection to an affidavit that was not accepted by an Ontario judge for an example of something that was deemed "inadmissable".  // BL \\ (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you have some specific evidence that you're considering. I am pretty sure that no one here will give a straight "yes/no" answer on it, as it would constitute legal advice.  But as someone who is in the process of filing a case in the Provincial Small Claims Court in BC, I'd be interested to hear what it is. NByz (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You aren't going to find a big list of admissable evidence; that's not how the law works. That stuff is decided by layers of laws and centuries of jurisprudence. Lawyers, and courts, make a living trying to figure out what (in a given case) is admissable, and for what. 87.114.147.43 (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In every (sensible) legal system people have the right to cross-examine witnesses. How would you to react if the other party came into court with a bunch of letters you'd never seen from someone you hadn't heard of, saying a bunch of things that were favourable to him?  Wouldn't you'd raise hell with the judge, and demand your right to question the authors of those letters in court, or have the letters discounted?  If the other guy protested these letters were written by people he claimed were "experts", what would you do, and how would you expect the court to react? 87.114.147.43 (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you really want to see how small-claims court (or any court) works, and get some idea about what's allowed and what isn't (and you're not using a lawyer, which is after all the point of small claims court) then go sit in the same court your case will be heard in (asap, not the day before). Sit there all day (which will be a bunch of cases) and take notes. Small claims fall under a very small number of rubrics ("I did the work, but he didn't pay", "I lent him money and he didn't return it", "it wasn't broken then, but now it is") and the evidence the judge cares about is simple and direct (contracts, letters, receipts). You'll see a case that's like your own, and you'll see what kind of thing the judge is likely to care about, and what he'll dismiss. And you'll see what a bloody, high-speed affair it is (think Judge Judy, but twice as fast and half as gentle). 87.114.147.43 (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Admissible evidence is evidence which the court, according to the court's rules, will admit to prove facts in issue. To see the details, the best avenue is to eithe read up the civil procedure rules in your jurisdiction (they should be available on the internet via your legislation website) or to buy an evidence law text book - try your local university book shop.
 * A much easier avenue is just to talk to your lawyer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of small claims courts are usually to avoid expensive lawyer fees. However because of this the rules are generally more relaxed than they would be in a full-blown court. Also judges are much more willing to give advice to the litigants than normally. Your best bet is probably to take the letters along with you - if they are admissible, fine. If they aren't admissible you haven't lost anything. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In most common law courts (which, in general, are courts on the English model, including those in the United States and Canada), letters are considered hearsay evidence and are not admissible unless there is an available exemption from the rule barring hearsay evidence. There are a number of potential exemptions, including one for business records. The particular exemptions available in your court, of course, will depend on that court's rules. Small claims courts tend to be less formal, so the judge may not stringently enforce the rule. Also, note that this guide meantions a service requirement for documents. John M Baker (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)