JB/091/312/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/091/312/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/091/312/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/091/312/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p><!-- pencil -->1 Feb<hi rend="superscript">y</hi> 1808</p>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<p>&#9758; After no allegation same oath</p>
 
<p><head>II  No Allegation without cross examination</head></p>
 
<p>By this I mean not <del>actual examination</del> to say<lb/>
 
that no allegation should ever be delivered, but under the scrutiny<lb/>
of cross-examination <add>actually</add> applied to it at the time.  <del>This<lb/>
would be</del> By such a regulation a compleat exclusion would<lb/>
be put upon all affidavit evidence:  and thereby abundance<lb/>
of delay, vexation and expence necessitated, which without<lb/>
prejudice to the rectitude of decision might be saved.</p>
<p><del>What I</del> On this occasion I suppose it according<lb/>
to the preceding rule settled that no allegation should be received<lb/>
without oath:  or at any rate without the party's<lb/>
being liable, and being apprized of his being liable, to be<lb/>
put upon his oath to confirm the veracity of his allegation<lb/>
by the securities attached to the solemnity of an oath.<lb/>
This being assured, what I mean to say here is – that no<lb/>
allegation ought to be received, though under the sanction of<lb/>
an oath, without a man's being either subjected to the scrutiny<lb/>
of cross-examination at the time, or being liable <del>to</del><lb/>
and understanding himself to be liable to be subjected to<lb/>
it at some future time: viz. at the requisition of the Judge,<lb/>
or at the requisition of <del>the adviser</del> <add>any</add> party interested, if acceded to<lb/>
by the Judge:  regard being had to <del>the <gap/> antagonizing</del> <add>such of the</add> ends<lb/>
of justice, as on this as on so many other occasions are liable<lb/>
to antagonism, viz. rectitude of decision on one side, <add>avoidance of</add> delay<lb/>
vexation and expence on the other.</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 17:42, 24 March 2023

Click Here To Edit

1 Feby 1808

☞ After no allegation same oath

II No Allegation without cross examination

By this I mean not actual examination to say
that no allegation should ever be delivered, but under the scrutiny
of cross-examination actually applied to it at the time. This
would be
By such a regulation a compleat exclusion would
be put upon all affidavit evidence: and thereby abundance
of delay, vexation and expence necessitated, which without
prejudice to the rectitude of decision might be saved.

What I On this occasion I suppose it according
to the preceding rule settled that no allegation should be received
without oath: or at any rate without the party's
being liable, and being apprized of his being liable, to be
put upon his oath to confirm the veracity of his allegation
by the securities attached to the solemnity of an oath.
This being assured, what I mean to say here is – that no
allegation ought to be received, though under the sanction of
an oath, without a man's being either subjected to the scrutiny
of cross-examination at the time, or being liable to
and understanding himself to be liable to be subjected to
it at some future time: viz. at the requisition of the Judge,
or at the requisition of the adviser any party interested, if acceded to
by the Judge: regard being had to the antagonizing such of the ends
of justice, as on this as on so many other occasions are liable
to antagonism, viz. rectitude of decision on one side, avoidance of delay
vexation and expence on the other.


Identifier: | JB/091/312/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 91.

Date_1

1808-02-01

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

091

Main Headings

scotch reform

Folio number

312

Info in main headings field

Image

001

Titles

no allegation without cross examination

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

e1

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

th 1806

Marginals

Paper Producer

andre morellet

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1806

Notes public

ID Number

29308

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in