JB/109/158/001: 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/109/158/001: Difference between revisions

Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/109/158/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/109/158/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/109/158/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p>King's Bench thus overloaded;  why was there so great a disproportion<lb/>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
between the business of that Court, and the Court of Exchequer<lb/>
 
and Common Pleas?  The Court of Exchequer had little<lb/>
 
business since the Bill for authorizing the Chief Baron of<lb/>
 
that Court to sit alone and determine Equity causes.  The Puisne<lb/>
Barons had almost nothing to do – they had as little to do as<lb/>
the Barons of Scotland.  Why was the business of the Exchequer<lb/>
so little, whilst the business of the King's Bench was so<lb/>
great?  The principal reason was this – the number of Attorneys<lb/>
<del>of</del> in the Exchequer were very limited, the amount<lb/>
in Clerks and Assistants was but 16;  if they threw open that<lb/>
Court to the Attorneys they would give the Barons something<lb/>
to do.  If such a measure would be found to interfere with<lb/>
the private rights of the officers of the Exchequer, they would<lb/>
be fairly entitled to compensation. – One cause of the arrear<lb/>
was a limitation on the number of days during which the<lb/>
Chief Justice might sit at <hi rend="underline">Nisi Pruis</hi> in Middlesex – an enactment<lb/>
which had been adopted on account of the fear which<lb/>
the City of London had that is business might be neglected.  He<lb/>
thought there could be no objection to a repeal of this Act.  The<lb/>
ordinary business of the Court in Term time, might as well<lb/>
be transacted by 3 as by 4 Judges, which it consisted, as it so often<lb/>
did, of motions of course.  In point of fact, a great deal of<lb/>
that business was transacted while one Judge only was<lb/>
present.  during that time therefore, one Judge might sit<lb/>
at <hi rend="underline">Nisi Pruis</hi>.  As to the business which was at present accumulated<lb/>
in the Court of King's Bench, it consisted in<lb/>
great part of trifling causes.  It was known that at the<lb/>
time when Acts were passed to restrain Actions below 40<lb/>
shillings, that sum of 40 shillings was equal to 10£, perhaps<lb/>
to 20£.  The greatest number of the new causes in<lb/>
the Court of King's Bench were for damages under 20£.  The<lb/>
actions in such cases, were no remedies, for if the plaintiff<lb/>
recovered <del>the</del> full damages, he never put a shilling in his<lb/>
pocket.  For all such causes he wished to see a more summary<lb/>
and general remedy provided, and he opposed this<lb/>
measure, chiefly to compel the Attorney General to use the influence<lb/>
of his high station to procure the adoption of a<lb/>
more extensive measure which might relieve <hi rend="underline">all</hi> the<lb/>
Courts from a species of business which was of no advantage<lb/>
to the suitors, and which threw discredit on the<lb/>
administration of justice.<lb/>
<add><hi rend="underline">Mr Warren</hi></add></p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 11:40, 8 October 2021

Click Here To Edit

King's Bench thus overloaded; why was there so great a disproportion
between the business of that Court, and the Court of Exchequer
and Common Pleas? The Court of Exchequer had little
business since the Bill for authorizing the Chief Baron of
that Court to sit alone and determine Equity causes. The Puisne
Barons had almost nothing to do – they had as little to do as
the Barons of Scotland. Why was the business of the Exchequer
so little, whilst the business of the King's Bench was so
great? The principal reason was this – the number of Attorneys
of in the Exchequer were very limited, the amount
in Clerks and Assistants was but 16; if they threw open that
Court to the Attorneys they would give the Barons something
to do. If such a measure would be found to interfere with
the private rights of the officers of the Exchequer, they would
be fairly entitled to compensation. – One cause of the arrear
was a limitation on the number of days during which the
Chief Justice might sit at Nisi Pruis in Middlesex – an enactment
which had been adopted on account of the fear which
the City of London had that is business might be neglected. He
thought there could be no objection to a repeal of this Act. The
ordinary business of the Court in Term time, might as well
be transacted by 3 as by 4 Judges, which it consisted, as it so often
did, of motions of course. In point of fact, a great deal of
that business was transacted while one Judge only was
present. during that time therefore, one Judge might sit
at Nisi Pruis. As to the business which was at present accumulated
in the Court of King's Bench, it consisted in
great part of trifling causes. It was known that at the
time when Acts were passed to restrain Actions below 40
shillings, that sum of 40 shillings was equal to 10£, perhaps
to 20£. The greatest number of the new causes in
the Court of King's Bench were for damages under 20£. The
actions in such cases, were no remedies, for if the plaintiff
recovered the full damages, he never put a shilling in his
pocket. For all such causes he wished to see a more summary
and general remedy provided, and he opposed this
measure, chiefly to compel the Attorney General to use the influence
of his high station to procure the adoption of a
more extensive measure which might relieve all the
Courts from a species of business which was of no advantage
to the suitors, and which threw discredit on the
administration of justice.
Mr Warren


Identifier: | JB/109/158/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 109.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

109

Main Headings

Parliamentary Reform

Folio number

158

Info in main headings field

Image

001

Titles

Category

Collectanea

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

G2

Penner

Watermarks

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

35813

Box Contents

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