JB/055/237/001: 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/055/237/001: Difference between revisions

Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
Line 39: Line 39:
of it will <add>belongs</add> in each individual case <del>belong</del> to the Judge.</p>
of it will <add>belongs</add> in each individual case <del>belong</del> to the Judge.</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 12:39, 28 October 2024

Click Here To Edit

1823. Octr. 21
Constitutional Code or Procedure I. Enactive PartCh.Continuances Quasi Trial
§. 1. of Continuances – cause of

Art. 7. Whence and by: Every judicial hearing is either
1. initiative 2. continuative or 3. terminative.

Art. 8. Saving some special justificative causes of continuances When, by the
an initiative hearing, a suit has been begun, it ought at
that same hearing to be terminated by the appropriate
pair of terminative decrees, opinative and imperative:
saving some special justificative cause of continuance.

Art. 9 Of justificative causes of continuance examples
are the following. To compleat perfect the list belong to the
penal and non-penal Codes.

1. On the question of Law, the Judge as yet unable
to form a terminative opinion.

2. On a question of fact, a piece of evidence,
believed to be relevant, material, and attainable, not
yet attained, nor attainable.

3. The suit complex in it's nature, and the elementary component
parts ingredients, cognizance whereof is necessary to rectitude
of decision by the terminative decrees, have not all
as yet been present to the cognizance of the Judge.

Art. Of the causes of complexity in a suit non-penal
and penal, examples are as follows. (See next page.) To compleat
the list, will belong to the non-penal and penal Codes.

Art. In relation to the receipt and extraction
of evidence, the general rules are these.

1. On the score of security against misdecision,
no piece of evidence ought to be refused to be received,
or refused to be extracted.

2. On the score of preponderant evil in the shape
of delay, vexation and expence, any piece of evidence
may be refused to be received, or refused to be extracted.
To take the account of evil on both sides, viz.
evil from the suppression of the evidence, and the evil from
the delay, vexation and expence necessary to the reception or extraction
of it will belongs in each individual case belong to the Judge.


Identifier: | JB/055/237/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 55.

Date_1

1823-10-21

Marginal Summary Numbering

or 7 - or 9, or 11 - or 12

Box

055

Main Headings

Constitutional Code; Procedure Code

Folio number

237

Info in main headings field

or Procedure I Enactive Part

Image

001

Titles

Category

Text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

C1 / E1

Penner

Watermarks

Marginals

Jeremy Bentham

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

17958

Box Contents

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