JB/091/102/001: 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/091/102/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto approved
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/091/102/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/091/102/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p><!-- pencil -->27 Jan<hi rend="superscript">y</hi> 1807</p>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<p>An observation that may have occurred, is that where<lb/>
 
delay vexation and expence is the object, removal after<lb/>
 
<del>appeal</del> <add>judgment</add> is the course but calculated for the accomplishment<lb/>
 
of it, and that therefore removal before <del>of</del> judgment may<lb/>
be left open without fear of any such <add>greater</add> inconvenience, than in<lb/>
the other case.</p>
<p>The <add>short</add> answer is that there are cases in which though <add>while</add><lb/>
removable <del>after</del> <add>before</add> judgment is practicable, removal after judgement<lb/>
– i.e. appeal is <add>on one side</add> not practicable:  as for instance where<lb/>
by the judgment plaintiff has got everything he demanded.</p>
<p>Another answer is, that there are ways <add>cases</add> in which removal<lb/>
before judgment may be more conducive to the purpose<lb/>
of delay &amp;c than after.</p>
<p><del><gap/></del> <add>But these <unclear>cases</unclear> dismissed as not necessary</add> Plaintiff for example has got judgment, and by it<lb/>
everything that h demanded:  appeal he can not, since there is<lb/>
nothing to appeal from:  there therefore the <del><gap/></del> litigation ends:  and<lb/>
the <add>mass of</add> delay, vexation and expence thus producible is no greater than<lb/>
what the mode of procedure in use in the Court below can<lb/>
be made to apply.  But suppose as is commonly <add>naturally</add> the case that<lb/>
<del>the mass of quantity <add><gap/></add> of this committees capable of being produced</del> <add>the soil of the Court <del><gap/></del> being <del>much better more favor suited to this species</del></add><lb/>
<del>good <gap/> of</del> more favourable, a greater crop of<lb/>
that sort of grain can be produced in the Court below, – in this<lb/>
case providence requires indeed that the suit be kept in the<lb/>
Court below till the last moment <del>before judgment, but no longer</del> <add>moment next before judgment, but no longer.</add><lb/>
<del>that before judgment it shall be <gap/></del></p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 18:02, 20 October 2023

Click Here To Edit

27 Jany 1807

An observation that may have occurred, is that where
delay vexation and expence is the object, removal after
appeal judgment is the course but calculated for the accomplishment
of it, and that therefore removal before of judgment may
be left open without fear of any such greater inconvenience, than in
the other case.

The short answer is that there are cases in which though while
removable after before judgment is practicable, removal after judgement
– i.e. appeal is on one side not practicable: as for instance where
by the judgment plaintiff has got everything he demanded.

Another answer is, that there are ways cases in which removal
before judgment may be more conducive to the purpose
of delay &c than after.

But these cases dismissed as not necessary Plaintiff for example has got judgment, and by it
everything that h demanded: appeal he can not, since there is
nothing to appeal from: there therefore the litigation ends: and
the mass of delay, vexation and expence thus producible is no greater than
what the mode of procedure in use in the Court below can
be made to apply. But suppose as is commonly naturally the case that
the mass of quantity of this committees capable of being produced the soil of the Court being much better more favor suited to this species
good of more favourable, a greater crop of
that sort of grain can be produced in the Court below, – in this
case providence requires indeed that the suit be kept in the
Court below till the last moment before judgment, but no longer moment next before judgment, but no longer.
that before judgment it shall be


Identifier: | JB/091/102/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 91.

Date_1

1807-01-27

Marginal Summary Numbering

10-11

Box

091

Main Headings

scotch reform

Folio number

102

Info in main headings field

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

e6

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

29098

Box Contents

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