JB/091/120/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/091/120/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto approved
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/091/120/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/091/120/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p><!-- pencil -->26 Dec<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> 1806<lb/>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<!-- pencil --><head>Scotch Reform  To L<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> Grenville</head></p>
 
<p>Those are particular cases:  and <del>the over-amplitude of</del> <add>supposing</add><lb/>
 
the Resolution to be in those respects too extensive, its <add>the</add> over-amplitude<lb/>
 
might be corrected by apposite exceptions.</p>
<p><add>But</add> The proposed prohibition of Appeals against Interlocutory<lb/>
Judgements <add>assumes and</add> supposes a clear <del><gap/></del> and <del><gap/></del><lb/>
invariable line of distinction <add>in existence</add> drawn between interlocutory<lb/>
judgements and final ones.  <add>Exists there</add> Does any such line exist <add>my Lord</add>?<lb/>
I do not mean in form, but in effect?  <del><gap/></del> Is it altogether<lb/>
clear that neither precedent nor analogy can afford<lb/>
either warrant or plausible pretence for framing <add>pronouncing</add> judgments that<lb/>
shall be interlocutory in form, final in effect?  Take<lb/>
<add>almost</add> any final judgement at random, is there <add>can there be</add> any difficulty,<lb/>
in framing a judgement, which shall be <add>being</add> in all other aspects<lb/>
the same, with the single difference of its being<lb/>
declared to be provisional only, reserving <add>to another time</add> the definition Disposal<lb/>
of the matter <add>subject matter</add> or dispute till another time?  This<lb/>
interlocutory judgement, (for under that appellation surely it<lb/>
would come) this interlocutory judgement, for so long as it<lb/>
continues unmodified <add>unaltered</add>, produces the effect of a final one.<lb/>
<add>But who is there to alter it?</add>  But by whom is it to be altered?  The Court below will<lb/>
not:  and the Court above, the House of Lords, this Resolution<lb/>
being carried into act, can not.</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 18:02, 20 October 2023

Click Here To Edit

26 Decr 1806
Scotch Reform To Ld Grenville

Those are particular cases: and the over-amplitude of supposing
the Resolution to be in those respects too extensive, its the over-amplitude
might be corrected by apposite exceptions.

But The proposed prohibition of Appeals against Interlocutory
Judgements assumes and supposes a clear and
invariable line of distinction in existence drawn between interlocutory
judgements and final ones. Exists there Does any such line exist my Lord?
I do not mean in form, but in effect? Is it altogether
clear that neither precedent nor analogy can afford
either warrant or plausible pretence for framing pronouncing judgments that
shall be interlocutory in form, final in effect? Take
almost any final judgement at random, is there can there be any difficulty,
in framing a judgement, which shall be being in all other aspects
the same, with the single difference of its being
declared to be provisional only, reserving to another time the definition Disposal
of the matter subject matter or dispute till another time? This
interlocutory judgement, (for under that appellation surely it
would come) this interlocutory judgement, for so long as it
continues unmodified unaltered, produces the effect of a final one.
But who is there to alter it? But by whom is it to be altered? The Court below will
not: and the Court above, the House of Lords, this Resolution
being carried into act, can not.


Identifier: | JB/091/120/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 91.

Date_1

1806-12-25

Marginal Summary Numbering

7

Box

091

Main Headings

scotch reform

Folio number

120

Info in main headings field

scotch reform to ld grenville

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

c1 / e3

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

iping 1804

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

bernardino rivadavia

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1804

Notes public

"adoptanda?"

ID Number

29116

Box Contents

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