JB/091/077/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/091/077/001: 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/091/077/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/091/077/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p><!-- pencil -->Dec<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> 1806</p>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<p>As to the drift of this Resolution, so far as I can hope<lb/>
 
to reach it by conjectures, <del><gap/></del> what it turns at <add>expresses</add>, or rather<lb/>
 
the <gap/> it hints at, is by way of a preface to English<lb/>
 
Juries, the introduction of English Pleading.  If so, I fear<lb/>
or rather I hope, it stands <unclear>conducive</unclear> to remain for some time<lb/>
longer in the <gap/> of infant and abortive projects.</p>
<p>Were not this the aim, <del>to what end</del> (which however to<lb/>
a certainty it could not have been in the original enactment<lb/>
in 1787) to what end such to force a defendant into<lb/>
a distinct admittance or denial of the plaintiffs <add>alledged</add> facts.<lb/>
Whatever is not denied may it not safely be taken <foreign>pro confesso</foreign>?<lb/>
Is not this the conclusion drawn naturally and of course?<lb/>
does it require an express regulation to authorize and  require<lb/>
the drawing of it?</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 14:12, 27 October 2023

Click Here To Edit

Decr 1806

As to the drift of this Resolution, so far as I can hope
to reach it by conjectures, what it turns at expresses, or rather
the it hints at, is by way of a preface to English
Juries, the introduction of English Pleading. If so, I fear
or rather I hope, it stands conducive to remain for some time
longer in the of infant and abortive projects.

Were not this the aim, to what end (which however to
a certainty it could not have been in the original enactment
in 1787) to what end such to force a defendant into
a distinct admittance or denial of the plaintiffs alledged facts.
Whatever is not denied may it not safely be taken pro confesso?
Is not this the conclusion drawn naturally and of course?
does it require an express regulation to authorize and require
the drawing of it?


Identifier: | JB/091/077/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 91.

Date_1

1806-12

Marginal Summary Numbering

9

Box

091

Main Headings

scotch reform

Folio number

077

Info in main headings field

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

c4 / e4

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

29073

Box Contents

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