JB/058/273/001

Click Here To Edit

19 May 1805
Evidence

By that arrangement however all that is saved is the difference in value
between the time of the subordinate officer, and that of the Judge. Without
the security in question, the defendant ought not to be subjected to the
vexation: and to give this security the plaintiff must go somewhere
to apply for the summons, and must speak with somebody: with
the subordinate officer, if not with the Judge.

Where the nature of the case is not as to fall short of this
maximum of simplicity, then it is that it may be proper to
require as a condition precedent to the summons or arrest of the
deft one examination submitted by the Plaintiff.

If he is examined it is not sufficient that he swear positively
to his belief of the existence of an investiture event in his favour.
He should be examined as to his knowledge or belief in respect of
all the several facts admitted as divestiture facts to his prejudice
– as constituting so many pleas in bar pleadable by the defendant.

Identifier: | JB/058/273/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 58.
Date_1	1805-05-19	Marginal Summary Numbering	4-5
Box	058	Main Headings	evidence
Folio number	273	Info in main headings field	evidence
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	d2 / e2
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	18942
Box Contents