JB/106/140/001

Click Here To Edit

5 March 1807

5. Against ununiformity diversity of decision – inconsistency in the
system of decisions, the one whatever remedy may be capable
of being employed applied by in superordinate authority, is not
susceptible of any such simple statement. Take for simplicity
of conception two such mutually repugnant decisions not forgetting that though in
fact the decisions thus co-repugnant may be in any number. As
between these two, suppose a standard of rectitude pre-established,
one of them conformable to such standard, the other,
being rep is unconformable to it. The decision first mentioned
being by the supposition a right decision, stands of course: the other, being by
the supposition repugnant to the right one, is wrong of course.
It is The result of it is injustice in the shape of misdecision;
remedy, reversal, as before.

Upon that simple fotting stands the species of mischief in
question, inconsistency among decisions, call it injustice, call it a cause of the or source
of injustice, where the standard of rectitude is in the shape of
the only real – in a word of statutory law. Whatever be the article in question
suppose two co-repugnant decisions pronounced under it, one of them will
be conformable to it, the other unconformable and as such calling
for reversal.

Taken by itself, it may happen to any such article of statutory
law to be of doubtful meaning: but no sooner is the doubt
removed by interpretation given to the article by competent
authority, thence of the two co-repugnant decisions it is thereby
ascertained that one is conformable to the standard of rectitude, the
other unconformable.

Compared together it may happen to two articles in the same statute, or portion of the law
established at the same time, to proceed wear an appearance of co-repugancy
so as to in such sort that the reconnecting them shall be matter of more or less
difficulty: but no sooner has the reconciliation been effected by competent
authority that as between two co-repugnant decisions grounded
in the statute the line is as clearly drawn in this, as in the last
preceding case.

Identifier: | JB/106/140/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 106.
Date_1	1807-03-05	Marginal Summary Numbering	35-36
Box	106	Main Headings	scotch reform
Folio number	140	Info in main headings field
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	c16 / c7
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	34728
Box Contents