JB/034/198/001

Click Here To Edit

1823. Octr. 15 Seen Decr 22
Constitutional Code or Procedure 1. Enactive Part Ch. Quasi Jury Trial
§. 2. Fields of Service

Art. 9. Antecedently to the pronunciation of the definitive
opinative decree the Judge

Art. 6 Where the preliminary original examination has
been gone through, it will rest with the Judge either to pronounce
the definitive opinative decree, or to appoint a
recapitulatory examination: adding in this case the day on
which and the Judge by whom it shall be performed.

Art. 7 The decr opinative decree pronounced together
with the imperative decree grounded on it, it will rest with all
parties on both sides either to acquiesce in it, or to requi
make requisition for a recapitulatory examination: which
examination will at the requisition of any party, be per
f be accordingly performed: unless preponderant evil in any shape shall have
been shown as resulting from it: for example, expence
to any party intolerable expence, or in consequence of the expence or delay
loss of evidence. A requisition for this purpose differs from an Appeal
loss of evidence Art. in the ordinary sense of the word. No otherwise than in this namely that it may be from the
Judge in question at one time to the same Judge at another time: and that
by this Quasi Appeal the expence delay and vexation produced by the transference.

Art. 8. If it be by th appointment made of the recapitulatory
examination be on the part of the Judge spontaneous,
it will be desirable if the other business of the Judicatory
permits that it the Judge by whom it has
comes to be performed should be the Judge by who the
original examination was performed. By this recollection of
lights afforded by the original examination, especially in respect
of consistency and inconsistency as between the testimony given by a
witness on the one occasion and the testimony given on the other occasion by that same witness
individual, additional clearness, correctness and completeness, may frequently given by the conception formed on the later occasion by the Judge.

Art. 12. If it be at the requisition of a party
it may be matter of question doubt and discussion, the Judge shall be whether
on the latter occasion it be better that the Judge be
the same, or a different one: to set against the advantages
attached to the identityof identity as above, there will may in this case be the disadvantage
resulting from mutual dissatisfaction as between party
and Judge: the danger lest by from the dissatisfaction testified by the
requisition, displeasure, so be conceived by the Judge: displeasure with attendant correspondent partiality
be produced in the mind of the Judges to obviate uneasiness
on this score, as far as may be will of course be among the objects of his solicitude.

Identifier: | JB/034/198/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 34.
Date_1	1823-10-15	Marginal Summary Numbering	6-9
Box	034	Main Headings	constitutional code; procedure code
Folio number	198	Info in main headings field	or procedure enactive part
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	e2
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	j whatman turkey mill 1822
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer	admiral pavel chichagov
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1822
Notes public		ID Number	10472
Box Contents