JB/081/118/001

Click Here To Edit

1829 April 30
Petitions

12
Suits in pendency
(3 §.3. Benefit &c

7
4 Under the present system
an honest man cannot
for a great length of
time bring an instrument
to the view of the Judge
the dishonest man
may keep it off year
after year — under
the dispatch no sooner
is it brought in the
presence of the Court
than it must be
exhibited

4. Coexistence with the purpose to which one obligatory
instrument of whatsoever description is applicable is the vast
benefit here forthcoming. Be it what it may Under the existing system one honest
man — a man who has no wishes adverse to the mode of justice can not
for a great length of time bring it to the view of the Judge — a
dishonest man whose endeavour it is to withhold from those him
on the other side to whom he is conscious of its being theirs belonging may
for year after year stave off the exhibition of it. Under
the dispatch this instrument this document no sooner does the holder
of this instrument of this document — of this source of wish, of this article
of evidence in the presence of the Court, than he finds himself
subjected to the obligation of exhibiting it: an obligation the fulfilment which
generally speaking it will be as easy for him to fulfill on that
day or the next.

8
To measure the importance
of this benefit
a man has but to look
over the list of obligatory
deeds.

Class I Purchase Deeds
II Mortgage do
III Annulling do
IV Settlement
V Leases
VI Copartnership deeds
VII Debtor & Creditor do
VIII Ancillary do
IX Wills

For taking measure of the extent of this benefit a man
has but to look over a list of the several species of deed obligatory
instruments — written evidence of the corresponding obligatory dialogue
conveyances that obligatory agreements included

Class I Purchase Deeds II Mortgage Deeds. III Annuity Deeds. IV Settlements
V. Leases. VI Copartnership Deeds. VII Debtor and Creditor Deeds.
VIII Ancillary Deeds. (a) Add to this IX Last Wills or say Postobituary
dispositions

9
A deed is either subject matter
of contestation as to interpretation
or not if yes
questions

1. Is the interpretation taken
the appropriate and the
legal one?
2 Is it appropriate but
not legal?
3 Is it legal but not
appropriate?

When a deed requires to be brought to view either the
interpretation to be put upon it is a subject matter of contestation
or it is not: if yes.

First suppose at the hands of the Commission Judge the interpretation necessary. 1 The interpretation
is it correct the appropriate one? Is it at the same time such as a the supremely
learned Equity Judge would have put upon it? (two very different
questions these) every thing so far so good as it should be. 2 Is it the appropriate
one but yet not such as the would have been put upon
it by the preeminently supremely learned Judge? On this supposition; be this being be but this supposed not
very easy will it be to find a tenable ground for passing disapprobation
on it. 3. Is it such an one as by the pre supremely learned
Judge
Judge would have been
put upon it, but at the
same time not the appropriate
one? Whatever a non lawyer
may say to it, at any rate it
has not in the mouth of a lawyer to pass disapprobation on it: on him it works by estoppel on his phrase is.

(a) Taken from a highly instructive recently published work not long published intituled

Identifier: | JB/081/118/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 81.
Date_1	1829-04-30	Marginal Summary Numbering	7-8
Box	081	Main Headings	petition for justice
Folio number	118	Info in main headings field	petitions
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	e3 / f12
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	b&m 1828
Marginals	george bentham	Paper Producer	arthur moore; richard doane
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1828
Notes public		ID Number	25905
Box Contents