JB/055/230/001: 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/055/230/001: Difference between revisions

Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/055/230/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/055/230/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/055/230/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p>1823. Dec<hi rend="superscript">r.</hi> 12<lb/>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<head>Constitutional Code</head></p>
 
<p>4.  Counter-evidence sufficient admitted.</p>
 
<p>5.  If, admitting the <add>past</add> existence of a collative state of things<lb/>
 
or event, any state of things <del>appears to have</del> having<lb/>
in relation to the demand in question <del><gap/></del> according to some<lb/>
ordinance of the law the effect of an ablative state of<lb/>
things appears to have had place either at <add>or after</add> the time<lb/>
of <add>the existence</add> such collative state of things or event.</p>
<p>6.  If, admitting the existence of an adequate collative<lb/>
event as above, and the non-existence of any ablative<lb/>
event, <del>a <gap/> counter-demand <add>as</add> appears yet</del> a defendant<lb/>
there is in whose favour <add>on whose part</add> a counter-demand has place<lb/>
<del>is in the</del> having in relation to the demand in question<lb/>
the effect of being in <del>value</del> relation to it equal or superior<lb/>
or equal in value.</p>
<p>Art. 3. <del><gap/></del> If he sustains the demand the Judge will  in <del><gap/></del> <add>and</add><lb/>
by his opinative decree make known and cause in the record<lb/>
<del>ready made <gap/></del> in a form as concise as possible, the ground<lb/>
on which as above he sustains it.  The applicant is<lb/>
in this case constituted pursuer:  every person at whose charge the demands<lb/>
sustained, a defendant.</p>
<p>Art. 4.  So <del><gap/></del> If he dismisses the demand, the <del>with in like<lb/>
manner</del> grounds on which he dismisses <add>rejects</add> it.</p>
<p>7.  If admitting the justice of the demand under all the<lb/>
above hears taken together the justice of the demand seems<lb/>
probable, state of the vexation and expence attached<lb/>
to the attendance <add>on the part</add> of the proposed Defendant <del>or such</del><lb/>
appears to be such as to be preponderant over the suffering<lb/>
resulting from the non-receipt of the service demanded<lb/>
the Judge may dismiss the demand, unless on the part of<lb/>
proposed Defendant, <add>the existence of</add> a refusal, declared or virtual to comply<lb/>
with it be, by the statement of the Applicant sufficiently established.</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}}

Revision as of 04:02, 25 October 2024

Click Here To Edit

1823. Decr. 12
Constitutional Code

4. Counter-evidence sufficient admitted.

5. If, admitting the past existence of a collative state of things
or event, any state of things appears to have having
in relation to the demand in question according to some
ordinance of the law the effect of an ablative state of
things appears to have had place either at or after the time
of the existence such collative state of things or event.

6. If, admitting the existence of an adequate collative
event as above, and the non-existence of any ablative
event, a counter-demand as appears yet a defendant
there is in whose favour on whose part a counter-demand has place
is in the having in relation to the demand in question
the effect of being in value relation to it equal or superior
or equal in value.

Art. 3. If he sustains the demand the Judge will in and
by his opinative decree make known and cause in the record
ready made in a form as concise as possible, the ground
on which as above he sustains it. The applicant is
in this case constituted pursuer: every person at whose charge the demands
sustained, a defendant.

Art. 4. So If he dismisses the demand, the with in like
manner
grounds on which he dismisses rejects it.

7. If admitting the justice of the demand under all the
above hears taken together the justice of the demand seems
probable, state of the vexation and expence attached
to the attendance on the part of the proposed Defendant or such
appears to be such as to be preponderant over the suffering
resulting from the non-receipt of the service demanded
the Judge may dismiss the demand, unless on the part of
proposed Defendant, the existence of a refusal, declared or virtual to comply
with it be, by the statement of the Applicant sufficiently established.


Identifier: | JB/055/230/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 55.

Date_1

1823-12-12

Marginal Summary Numbering

2 continued, 3-4

Box

055

Main Headings

Constitutional Code; Procedure Code

Folio number

230

Info in main headings field

Constitutional Code

Image

001

Titles

Category

Text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

C8 / E4

Penner

Watermarks

J WHATMAN TURKEY MILL 1823

Marginals

Jeremy Bentham

Paper Producer

Jonathan Blenman

Corrections

George Bentham

Paper Produced in Year

1823

Notes public

ID Number

17951

Box Contents

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