xml:lang="en" lang="en" dir="ltr">

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Keep up to date with the latest news - subscribe to the Transcribe Bentham newsletter; Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts


Jump to: navigation, search

Click Here To Edit

7 August 1805

Evidence Procedure

Procedure Removal
<sic>Ch. 2 Conditions

(1 Reasons


Question. Why subject the appellant to advance the costs of the appeal
not only on his own side but on that of his antagonist
the appellee?

Answer. Lest the expense should depose of defending
the at the Court above the decision of the Court below should
deprive the party of the benefit of the decision pronounced in his
favour by the Court below. Were it not for this precaution, a mala as often
fide suitor against whom the decision had gone in as the party in whose favour f the judgment of the Court below had
been passed found himself unable to defray the expense of the procedure
before in the Court above, his antagonist, suffering mala fides if acting mala fides
on his part would have find in his hands a sure mode of depriving his antagonist
of the justice that was his due.

However the relative condition of the parties on point of justice,
the true inconvenience (it will naturally be observed) will
fall upon the party against who in whose disfavour the judgment of the Court below
operates. This might be the case ( the objection) even although
each of the parties were to bear his own costs: but if, as
here proposed, the appellant is in the appeal to bear not his own costs
only but likewise those of the adversary, the inconvenience on the
score of expense is in this case the double to that which to which the appellee takes
place is exposed in the other cases

True: in either case, with or without the imposition
of this condition unless provision be made at the public expense one of the parties must at any rate be exposed
to the danger of injustice, viz: of the ultimate injustice produced
by a misdecision to his prejudice. But the appellee
has the op declaration of the Court below in his favour;one his side the appellee
has the declaration of the same Court same presumption operating in disfavour of his
side: and according to the observation made above, the Court
below is a Court that ought not to subsist, or the Judge below is a Court Judge
that ought not to be suffered to continue in his office, if the presumption
produced by its decision be not equal in
thought to a probability of many to see.

Identifier: | JB/057/114/001
"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 57.



Marginal Summary Numbering



Main Headings

evidence; procedure code

Folio number


Info in main headings field

[[info_in_main_headings_field::[evidence deleted] procedure]]





text sheet

Number of Pages




Page Numbering



jeremy bentham



Paper Producer


Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number


Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk