★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
Auto loaded |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
'' | <head>BURGLARY</head> <p> It is [curious] <add> amusing & not <unclear>unconstructive</unclear></add> to observe how the compiler Hawkins begins one of his pages, on the <add> subject</add> <lb/>of this offence, & how he ends it. <hi rend="superscript">+</hi> <note> + p.102 1 Hawk</note> <unclear><hi rend="superscript">or</hi></unclear> As to the second point (says he) viz: <add> in the beginning</add> whether<lb/> there must be both an <hi rend="underline">entry</hi> and <hi rend="underline">breaking </hi>; <hi rend="underline">notwithstanding some loose opinions to <add> the </add> </hi><lb/> <hi rend="underline">contrary</hi>, there seems to be no good cause to <hi rend="underline">doubt</hi> but that both are required to <sic>compleat</sic><lb/> this offence ——— Thus he begins it — <add> This is the beginning</add> at <del> the end <gap/> <add>it with <gap/></add></del> <add> he ends with handing in a decision which flatly</add> contradicts himself <add>with</add><lb/> all the tranquillity recognizable: " Also it hath been adjudged, that those were <add> no</add> <lb/> "less guilty [of Burglary] who having a design to rob a House, took Lodgings <add> in</add> <lb/>"it, and then fell on the Landlord and robbed him; <hi rend="underline">for</hi> the Law will not <unclear>endure</unclear><lb/> "to have its' Justice defrauded by such evasions. And for the like reason, a<lb/> "portion, it has been resolved, that where persons, intending to rob a House, raise<lb/> "a Hue and cry, and prevailed with a Constable to make a Search in the<lb/>"House, and having got in by that means, <hi rend="underline">with the Owner's consent</hi>, <add> i.e. without any breaking at all]</add> bound the <add> Constable</add><lb/> "and robbed the Inhabitants, they were guilty of Burglary; <add> He <gap/> of recounting this contradiction when he adds</add> <hi rend="underline">for</hi> there cannot<lb/> "be a greater affront to Public Justice, than to make use of legal process <add>as</add><lb/> "a State for such villainous purposes; and <hi rend="underline">therefore</hi> the whole Act is <unclear>esteemed</unclear> <foreign> <gap/><lb/> "at initio"</foreign> — <del> And what of that?</del> <hi rend="underline">It's all very wrong as no body can doubt</hi> but, <lb/> where's the Burglary all the while? It is curious to observe how this reasoning <add>hangs</add><lb/> together — he undertakes <del> to prove <add><gap/></add> this last mentioned offence to prove it</del> <add> to prove the transaction</add> Burglary</p> <p> The business is to prove this, Burglary — In Burglary, a breaking<lb/> and Burglary <add> to make it such</add> he has been just observing, breaking is necessary: <add> now the point is</add> nothing is broken <lb/> <del> But it was very <add>all</add> wrong from the beginning</del> <add> However <gap/> it is a more villainous affair</add> to <del>affront</del> <add> abuse</add> the <add> a</add> legal process, than<lb/> there was a breaking & there was Burglary.</p> <p> I am truly sorry to observe, that in a performance of far superior merit, we <add> have</add><lb/> a page on the same subject <hi rend="superscript">#</hi> <note> # 4 Cam. 226<lb/> An Author of a very different <hi rend="underline">stamp</hi> <add>class</add> [<del>complexion</del>] <lb/> Who embellishes every thing<lb/> he touches<lb/> his pen too often <sic>employd</sic><lb/> in giving <add> putting</add> a polish on absurdity<lb/> under whose hands <add> from whose pen</add> absurdity<lb/> takes a polish that strips off<lb/> half its deformity<lb/> absurdity looks beautiful &<lb/> contradiction slides <add>passes</add> on unobserved</note> begun and ended in the same manner. "As to<lb/> the manner of committing Burglary; <add> says the Author of the Commentaries</add> there must be both a <hi rend="underline">breaking</hi> and <unclear>entering</unclear><lb/> to complete it x x x x There must be an <hi rend="underline">actual</hi> breaking; not a mere <add> legal</add> <foreign> <gap/><lb/> fragit</foreign> (by leaping over invisible ideal boundaries which may constitute a <gap/><lb/> trespass) but a <hi rend="underline">substantial and forcible <unclear>inception</unclear></hi>" — then comes a string of <unclear>decisions</unclear><lb/> ending with the two above specified — "All these <add> entries</add> continues the Author have <unclear>been</unclear><lb/> "adjudged Burglaries, <sic>tho'ugh</sic> <hi rend="underline">there was no actual breaking</hi>: <hi rend="underline">for</hi> the Law <add>will</add> <lb/> has considered to give the stamp of his authority to this <add> a like</add> mass of contradictions.</p> <p><note> were these conditions as universal<lb/> in other subjects, as without necessity<lb/> they are general <add> frequent</add> in Law, language<lb/> would no longer serve as an medium<lb/> of communication.</note></p> <p> <note>I shall not stay to compare, distinguish,<lb/> reconcile or if <add>where</add> irreconcilable, reprobate<lb/> <del>all</del> the decisions sentient & <gap/><lb/> that have been pronounced or even<lb/> that are now recognized upon the <add> every</add> <del> subject of which I had</del> <add> indeed any heads/part division. topic</add> for<lb/> what industry in the writer or<lb/> what patience in the reader would<lb/> be sufficient for such a taste?<lb/> nor shall I <del>amuse</del> <add>indulge</add> myself with <lb/> applying a <sic>plaister</sic> to every wound<lb/> which common-Sense has received<lb/> in the Chance-medley<lb/> of opinions: Any man of<lb/> tolerable sagacity will be able<lb/> to do it for himself by the general<lb/> recipes I have given, if there<lb/> he is <add> they have</add> then any virtue: if not,<lb/> their number is already but too<lb/> great.</note></p> <!-- at the bottom of the page --> <p>BURGLARY. [BR][2][</p> | ||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
BURGLARY
It is [curious] amusing & not unconstructive to observe how the compiler Hawkins begins one of his pages, on the subject
of this offence, & how he ends it. + + p.102 1 Hawk or As to the second point (says he) viz: in the beginning whether
there must be both an entry and breaking ; notwithstanding some loose opinions to the
contrary, there seems to be no good cause to doubt but that both are required to compleat
this offence ——— Thus he begins it — This is the beginning at the end it with he ends with handing in a decision which flatly contradicts himself with
all the tranquillity recognizable: " Also it hath been adjudged, that those were no
"less guilty [of Burglary] who having a design to rob a House, took Lodgings in
"it, and then fell on the Landlord and robbed him; for the Law will not endure
"to have its' Justice defrauded by such evasions. And for the like reason, a
"portion, it has been resolved, that where persons, intending to rob a House, raise
"a Hue and cry, and prevailed with a Constable to make a Search in the
"House, and having got in by that means, with the Owner's consent, i.e. without any breaking at all] bound the Constable
"and robbed the Inhabitants, they were guilty of Burglary; He of recounting this contradiction when he adds for there cannot
"be a greater affront to Public Justice, than to make use of legal process as
"a State for such villainous purposes; and therefore the whole Act is esteemed
"at initio" — And what of that? It's all very wrong as no body can doubt but,
where's the Burglary all the while? It is curious to observe how this reasoning hangs
together — he undertakes to prove this last mentioned offence to prove it to prove the transaction Burglary
The business is to prove this, Burglary — In Burglary, a breaking
and Burglary to make it such he has been just observing, breaking is necessary: now the point is nothing is broken
But it was very all wrong from the beginning However it is a more villainous affair to affront abuse the a legal process, than
there was a breaking & there was Burglary.
I am truly sorry to observe, that in a performance of far superior merit, we have
a page on the same subject # # 4 Cam. 226
An Author of a very different stamp class [complexion]
Who embellishes every thing
he touches
his pen too often employd
in giving putting a polish on absurdity
under whose hands from whose pen absurdity
takes a polish that strips off
half its deformity
absurdity looks beautiful &
contradiction slides passes on unobserved begun and ended in the same manner. "As to
the manner of committing Burglary; says the Author of the Commentaries there must be both a breaking and entering
to complete it x x x x There must be an actual breaking; not a mere legal
fragit (by leaping over invisible ideal boundaries which may constitute a
trespass) but a substantial and forcible inception" — then comes a string of decisions
ending with the two above specified — "All these entries continues the Author have been
"adjudged Burglaries, tho'ugh there was no actual breaking: for the Law will
has considered to give the stamp of his authority to this a like mass of contradictions.
were these conditions as universal
in other subjects, as without necessity
they are general frequent in Law, language
would no longer serve as an medium
of communication.
I shall not stay to compare, distinguish,
reconcile or if where irreconcilable, reprobate
all the decisions sentient &
that have been pronounced or even
that are now recognized upon the every subject of which I had indeed any heads/part division. topic for
what industry in the writer or
what patience in the reader would
be sufficient for such a taste?
nor shall I amuse indulge myself with
applying a plaister to every wound
which common-Sense has received
in the Chance-medley
of opinions: Any man of
tolerable sagacity will be able
to do it for himself by the general
recipes I have given, if there
he is they have then any virtue: if not,
their number is already but too
great.
BURGLARY. [BR][2][
|
Identifier: | JB/070/264/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 70. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
070 |
of laws in general |
||
|
264 |
burglary |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
c1 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::[gr motif] [britannia with shield motif]]] |
||
|
23379 |
|||
