★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
no good <del>to be</del> hanged for a Sheep as<lb/> | no good <del>to be</del> hanged for a Sheep as<lb/> | ||
a Lamb — but <del>according to the</del><add>have the advice of</add><lb/> | a Lamb — but <del>according to the</del><add>have the advice of</add><lb/> | ||
<add>the Law is <del>do</del></add> <del><gap/></del> [<del><gap/> should a</del>ct] < | <add>the Law is <del>do</del></add> <del><gap/></del> [<del><gap/> should a</del>ct] <unclear>madder</unclear> <add>not</add> with<lb/> | ||
the Lamb, but by all means take<lb/> | the Lamb, but by all means take<lb/> | ||
the Sheep & he<add>you</add> would not be hanged<lb/> | the Sheep & he<add>you</add> would not be hanged<lb/> | ||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
and the Indictments & to which he accedes.</p> | and the Indictments & to which he accedes.</p> | ||
<note># Sect.7. p.90</note> | |||
<note><add>+++</add> much better than from these cases <lb/> | |||
which are ambiguous, prolific of<lb/> | |||
debate, & in appearance at least,<lb/> | |||
<del>contrary</del> & inconsistent<lb/> | |||
nor can the Law be <gap/>belied from<lb/> | |||
them at all but through the<lb/> | |||
<unclear>evidence</unclear> of that maxim.</note> | |||
<head>EMBEZZLEMENT</head> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} |
LARCENY EMBEZZLEMENT
After having thus endeavour'd to establish a comprehensiblean intelligible distinction between these tw crimes
it will be edifying to observe how they have been confounded —
If we believe Serj.t Hawkins speaking from his Judgement + — " If a pad
be guilty or no Trespass in taking the Goods, he cannot be guilty of Felony" in carrying them away"<add>[+]</add>
+ 1. Hawk, 89-SS2.
[+] and agreeable to this he observes SS3 (speaks)
f and for this he cites a decision an authority) that "a
"Carrier who receives Goods in order"
"to carry them to a certain place, "
"cannot be said to steal them,"
by imbezzeling of them afterwards."
now by stbr being said to steal them
it appears by the same fiction, he
means, being felonouslyguilty. [of Felony,
that is of Larceny.]
If we believe the same Sergt. Hawkins speaking in the next page from his
Authorities, it Ca opening a Bank and taking out a part with intent to steal things
may . ing possession here to possession are within another
Nowin both these cases, by the supposition was is the original taking the same, and means
of them a trespass.
If it be said on his behalf, that in the case last part he means not the origin
taking of the whole which was no trespass, but the partial taking [which according in the idea here attributed
to him ], besides that the Idea of ++ two takings one within another is not very satisfactory I
++ of taking the same thing over again
after he had got it see not here this second taking can be kept contra-distinct clear from the "carrying away", to who
my apprehension necessarily includes it.
At least if, the most of possessions [acquired by] the taking within after upon in taking
first second of which was no purpose and antheother not, was what he conceived; he should have g<add>iven</add>
some notice of his meaning
# It is a vulgar that a man
no good to be hanged for a Sheep as
a Lamb — but according to thehave the advice of
the Law is do [ should act] madder not with
the Lamb, but by all means take
the Sheep & heyou would not be hanged
at all.
The truth of the matter seems to be [this] that there may be two distinct takings con
distrathe first<add></add> whiich was by the deliveryconsent of the owner not being a pass, of the pa
not being with the consent of the owner being one: and lastly a carrying away which is distinguishable in act from this last
for 3 example 4 he 1 might 2 take some of the goods out of the , which is the
partial taking distinct from the entire one: and yet not delivering the part with
the rest, not be said to have carried it away: but then the carrying away in this
case necessarily including the taking was superfluous, contrary to the ideawhich prior
and the Indictments & to which he accedes.
# Sect.7. p.90
+++ much better than from these cases
which are ambiguous, prolific of
debate, & in appearance at least,
contrary & inconsistent
nor can the Law be belied from
them at all but through the
evidence of that maxim.
EMBEZZLEMENT
Identifier: | JB/070/228/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 70. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
070 |
of laws in general |
||
228 |
larceny embezzlement |
||
001 |
|||
text sheet |
1 |
||
recto |
|||
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]] |
||
23343 |
|||