★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
Auto loaded |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users 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> | |||
<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}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
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. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1806-12 |
9 |
||
|
091 |
scotch reform |
||
|
077 |
|||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
c4 / e4 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
|||
|
29073 |
|||
