JB/063/118/002

Click Here To Edit

Why Intention is regarded? 4

It is well known that in cases questions of Felony, the "felleus animus" the gallish intention
from in which [Ld Coke who was] a practical Jurist/writer more learned as a Lawyer than skilful as an Etymologist
has seen read the origin of the term name as well as the essence of the thing, he is
ordinarily treated as [the a] criterion of Criminality. Now it may be said that there are cases in which this
intention can not be barely the intention to do the [obnoxious] physical act: and the
cases or Larceny Arson or Incendiarism and perhaps Homicide will probably be instanced.

In Larceny Thefts it will be said, the physical act is no other than that which is
confessedly the proper subject for [the moderate penalty of] a mere civil action: viz the ademption of the thing in
question the intention to do it is also the same./equally incontestible in both cases By what Criterion then it will be asked do you discriminate
two cases if not by that of the absence or presence of the malignity in the intention? I
answer that I do not nor does [in fact] the Law (to Judge of it from its the practice and not from
the phraseology of the its professors) even in the instance alledged [regard] found the distinction that malignity
of all: and but that in truth the distinction is founded upon the absence or
presence of intention to do a collateral act: viz: Concealment of the act and of the thing add or flight of
the person: an intention which [where it subsists] manifests itself in acts whose relation connection/origination
from it to it is little bother to dispute. susceptible of a adoubt The intention therefore If it the question asked therefore be either what is the or what
to be the felonious intention required? spoken of in the writing of Jurists?/to which the Jurymen have regard? the answer will be the intention of secret
concealment and or flight. + + v. pp. 8.9.10. 12th Division of
Law

Now It is plain that the disposition or, (to confine myself to the expression in question) the intention is rendered neither more [nor less] gallish malignant when the ademption is accompanied with those circumstances than
when not without them is a task more so according to popular conception
where where it is directed to the vanquishing of and unjust possession by who do well
give it the character come up to constitute theft of Larceny Theft Nay a greater malignity is commonly deputed
to an intention of acquiring an unjust possession which is to be the party attempts to/effectuated by the artifices of a
contestation than that which he pursues by such methods as denominate characterise the criminal
offence of Larceny: in as much as the length of time through which it the former may be
pursued excludes the idea of a sudden an urgent/ immove necessity: and the degree of reflected contrivance it
requires that of a transient work of indicates a deliberate more incorrigible/rivetted & permanent disposition. And hence the declamation observation
so frequently to be which occur in such abundance in the fugitive production of popular moralists, that

malignity intention greater in one enterprise
to be effectuated by quoters of Law
as indicating a more confirmed
and reflective malignity — hence
the popular exclamation such
as one is worse than a highwayman
&c.

Identifier: | JB/063/118/002 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 63.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	063	Main Headings	law in general
Folio number	118	Info in main headings field	why intention is regarded
Image	002	Titles	law of nature
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	2
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	d4 /
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::[gr with crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	20307
Box Contents