JB/063/160/002

Click Here To Edit

EXEMPTION ACCIDENT Negligence 3*

to Judges the Court of the King's Bench instead of being ruled as it is called by one a single at the
Trial would have been "that the deceased was an the apprentice and a child
(for I will omitt no one circumstance that is presumed that it may be a question whether
these would have been ) that the Difl struck him with a great staff by which
he died.

Who is there that does not will say see that the Master who by in correcting his servant struggling or otherwise killed
him his servant, might [not] have been be just as likely to have intended to kill his Servant, & to
have used probably means of doing so, as he who struck him [once] with a great
Staff? And that the deed taking of the deed in out of the hands of the Jury who alone could see the staff &
be apprized of a thousand other circumstances to be collected from the tone & gestures &
suggestive expressions in the tale of the Witnesses, not to be transmissible upon paper,
would be making it matter of cross and Pile whether an innocent man should
be put to death? It is true in the particular instance, the Judge being present to hear the had the benefit
of those circumstances to guide his direction; but as he took it to himself, as being
matter of Law, by that rule, if he had not chosen to rule it , it might
have gone as it often does to others to rule it elsewhere, & the probability of justice
being done would have been as it often is, just in the that I have represented.

Another example from the same Author I

p.476

"A. drives his Cart carelessly and it runs over a child in the street: if"
"A. have seen the Child, and yet drives on upon him" (as if he might not have
seen him when it was too late) it is Murder (& he would be hanged); "but if he saw not the Child
"yet it is manslaughter" (and if he was worth as many Farmers are he would stript of
every shilling besides being burnt with an hot Iron & perhaps imprisoned) But (observe
the difference) if the Child had run across the way (What if the Cart had driven as carefully as he did with the .), and the Cart ran over the boy
before it was possible for the Carter to make a stop, it is per infortunium, and
accordingly this direction was given by us at Newgate Sessions — I believe

the reader will by this time think
as much hurt may be done
down rules of Law
the matters where no rules of
that to be laid down as by driving carts.

Identifier: | JB/063/160/002 "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	160	Info in main headings field	exemption accident negligence
Image	002	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	d3*
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	20349
Box Contents