JB/050/078/001

Click Here To Edit

PROCEDURE MURDER. LAW )( EXCT. 1 Castill v. Bambridge & Corbet
2d Str. 854.-857.

Now this it is plain, is saying

which being in the disjunction I reckon but
as one

Now this it is plain is saying if you will find these 8 facts, I will infer from the 6 first
of them the intention & from the 2 last of them the causality: & having so done, I will also declare
that what is the standing inference of the Law from these for general proposition whensoever
they are, as thus they will here have been here established.

The 2 facts ultima gradus are such

Here then we have two distinct inferences made by the Judge: one the 1st of general
facts which in general (if I may be permitted that expression for want of one more apposite) from the respective
particular facts: the 2d of Law from those general facts.

The general facts are those which can the existence
of which may be predicated alike in every
be laid to a
case of Murder
The particular one whose existence
is only predicable in this.
I call them particular, because
tho' you should give each of them a character
of generality by substituting A.B.
& C. in the Room of Castil
Bambridge & Corbet it is
a thousand to one against them
ever happening a transaction to which
which they can be applied will come under it
(all together)

Now it is the first of these inferences which I say was one too many: for that it he ought to have
left it to the Jury

If any there could be any advantage accrue from his assuming it rather than instead of then they is
it must be either with reference to the case in hand, or to future cases —
There could be none on this first score case in hand: for they qua Jury, were exactly as well qualified
for it, as he could be "qua" Judge. It was perfectly pure of every thing matter of Law; insomuch It is what they would be
equally as well qualified for forming if they had never so much as heard there were as any such thing of their being such a thing as Law, as if they b had
the whole System of it by heart.

What can out upon any occasion be an advantage towards the of a right decision,
possessed by the Judge, is the superior intelligence of Law — but that is no advantage
upon this.

Jury to determine of 1st Actions 2d
Phenomena
3. Causalities.

If it is said there he has also another advantage which is that of superior sagacity; I am
(besides that this is turned to profit another way) this argument applies against not more to one case than another but against the very institutions in all
the expediency of the institution is not here in dispute)
but the question only here is, whether supposing them instituted, they ought or not to decide in this.

Actions are 1 external of body 2d internal
of mind
Internal are to be collected only from
causality — External may be perceived either so collected in
by some — Phenomena may be so
collected or perceived by sense

There is therefore no such advantage relative to the case in question: but neither is there
relative to future cases.

Identifier: | JB/050/078/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 50.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	050	Main Headings	procedure code
Folio number	078	Info in main headings field	procedure murder law & fact
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	c1
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	16069
Box Contents