JB/081/241/001: 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/081/241/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<head>1829 May 25<lb/>Petitions</head> <p><note><sic>ult<hi rend="superscript">o</hi><lb/>Supplement<note><lb/>(4 <note>&sect;.11 Elucidations<lb/>&sect; Reconciliation Commissioners</note></p> <p.<note>7<lb/>1. Minimization of <sic>expence</sic><lb/>&amp; delay<lb/>in 1826 Causes saved<lb/>from Judge &amp; <sic>Co<hi rend="superscript">s</hi></sic> jaws<lb/>22,105</note></p> <p>1 Benefit the first. Substitution of an inexpensive and<lb/><sic>undilatory</sic> to an expensive and dilatory remedy.  In all Denmark,<lb/>In the year 1826, the latest, of which in <!-- blank space --><gap/> 1829 the accounts<lb/>had been published.  In all Denmark, number of the<lb/>causes <del><gap/></del> commenced in or say <del><gap/></del> number of applications<lb/>made to the Commissioners 24,071: whereof, after the Opinion pronounced<lb/>by the Commissions, commenced no more than 1,966.<lb/>Saved then from the jaws of the fee-fed Judges and professional lawyers,<lb/>22,105.</p> <!-- pencil calculation of figures in the margin --> <p><note>8<lb/>true that of these<lb/>2595 <sic>dropt</sic><lb/>Cause of these being<lb/><sic>dropt</sic><lb/>1 Inability to afford<lb/>the <sic>expence</sic> of a suit<lb/>2 Opinion that the<lb/>chance of success not<lb/>worth the <sic>expence</sic><lb/>3 Perception of<lb/>defendants insolvency</note></p> <p>true it is, that of the 245,072 no more than 16,038<lb/>were settled to the mutual advantage of both parties: and that after<lb/>having been dismissed, no fewer than 7,555 were by the originally<lb/><del>named</del> <add>proposed</add> demandant <del><gap/> <gap/></del> or say plaintiffs <sic>dropt</sic> <del>without<lb/><gap/> <gap/> <gap/></del> and not carried before the ordinary Courts<lb/><del><sic>dropt</sic> and</del> Of these being thus <sic>dropt</sic> and yet without having<lb/><del><gap/></del> received compensation what may have been the cause or<lb/>causes.  Answer  of <del>these <gap/></del> <add>the following</add> it should seem are. 1. Inability<lb?>to afford the <sic>expence</sic> of a suit <del>before those orders</del> in those seats<lb/>of depredation.  2. <del>Opinion derived from short</del> From the opinion<lb/>delivered by the Commission a <gap/> that the value of the<lb/>chance of obtaining the subject matter of the demand was not equitable<lb/><del>to the</del> <gap/> for the <sic>expence</sic>. 3. Perception in pursuance of the inability<lb/>of the proposed defendant to pay the amount of the demand,<lb/>especially after the drainage experienced <add>suffered</add> by him in the fee-fed<lb/>judicatory.</p> <p><note>9<lb/>This out of a population<lb/>of 2,000,000 salvation<lb/>afforded to 150,000.</note></p> <p><del>So many</del> Here then in that small domain <del><gap/></del><lb/>inhabitants not so may as <del><gap/></del> 2,000,000 upwards of<lb/>22,000 pair of litigants rescued in the course of that one Year<lb/>from the carnivorous jaws: individuals so many, <del>c</del> considered<lb/>in one <gap/> state: <del><gap/></del> but considered as <del><gap/></del> a family<lb/>state.  if the number were no great than <add><gap/> taking the number at no more than</add> 5 in a family; this<lb/>will make 110,000.  But instead of one litigant and two more<lb/>on each side, litigants, in suits in any number litigants there<lb/>may have been in any number, on one side or on both sides: if no<lb/>more than 8000 individual litigants, making 40,000 <gap/> litigant families,<lb/>how will <del>b</del> 150,000, be the number of those to whom within<lb/>that short <gap/> of time, salvation in that shape was extended.</p>
 




<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}}

Revision as of 11:13, 15 August 2023

Click Here To Edit

1829 May 25
Petitions

<sic>ulto
Supplement<note>
(4 <note>§.11 Elucidations
§ Reconciliation Commissioners

<p.7
1. Minimization of expence
& delay
in 1826 Causes saved
from Judge & Cos jaws
22,105

1 Benefit the first. Substitution of an inexpensive and
undilatory to an expensive and dilatory remedy. In all Denmark,
In the year 1826, the latest, of which in 1829 the accounts
had been published. In all Denmark, number of the
causes commenced in or say number of applications
made to the Commissioners 24,071: whereof, after the Opinion pronounced
by the Commissions, commenced no more than 1,966.
Saved then from the jaws of the fee-fed Judges and professional lawyers,
22,105.

8
true that of these
2595 dropt
Cause of these being
dropt
1 Inability to afford
the expence of a suit
2 Opinion that the
chance of success not
worth the expence
3 Perception of
defendants insolvency

true it is, that of the 245,072 no more than 16,038
were settled to the mutual advantage of both parties: and that after
having been dismissed, no fewer than 7,555 were by the originally
named proposed demandant or say plaintiffs dropt without
and not carried before the ordinary Courts
dropt and Of these being thus dropt and yet without having
received compensation what may have been the cause or
causes. Answer of these the following it should seem are. 1. Inability<lb?>to afford the expence of a suit before those orders in those seats
of depredation. 2. Opinion derived from short From the opinion
delivered by the Commission a that the value of the
chance of obtaining the subject matter of the demand was not equitable
to the for the expence. 3. Perception in pursuance of the inability
of the proposed defendant to pay the amount of the demand,
especially after the drainage experienced suffered by him in the fee-fed
judicatory.

9
This out of a population
of 2,000,000 salvation
afforded to 150,000.

So many Here then in that small domain
inhabitants not so may as 2,000,000 upwards of
22,000 pair of litigants rescued in the course of that one Year
from the carnivorous jaws: individuals so many, c considered
in one state: but considered as a family
state. if the number were no great than taking the number at no more than 5 in a family; this
will make 110,000. But instead of one litigant and two more
on each side, litigants, in suits in any number litigants there
may have been in any number, on one side or on both sides: if no
more than 8000 individual litigants, making 40,000 litigant families,
how will b 150,000, be the number of those to whom within
that short of time, salvation in that shape was extended.



Identifier: | JB/081/241/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 81.

Date_1

1829-05-25

Marginal Summary Numbering

7-9

Box

081

Main Headings

petition for justice

Folio number

241

Info in main headings field

petition

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

e4

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

b&m 1829

Marginals

george bentham

Paper Producer

arthur moore; richard doane

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1829

Notes public

ID Number

26028

Box Contents

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