JB/081/100/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/081/100/001: Difference between revisions

Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/081/100/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto approved
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<head>1829 March 23<lb/>Petition</head> <p>B 7 <del>6</del><lb/><note>Supplement</note><lb/>(7 <note>
<head>1829 March 23<lb/>Petition</head> <p>B 7 <del>6</del><lb/><note>Supplement</note><lb/>(7 <note>
&sect;.3 Suits in prudences</note></p> <p><note>11<lb/>Prevention of<lb/>disappointment<lb/>this the only<lb/>justification of<lb/>the decision in<lb/>evil cases.</note></p> <p>Prevention of disappointment &#x2014; The <del>fo</del> more closely<lb/>the matter is considered, the more satisfactory will be a<lb/>man's conviction, that by this <del>short re</del> phrase short<lb/>as it is, is <del><gap/></del> excluded the only <!-- brackets in pencil -->[justifiable] reason why<lb/><del>to over</del> in relation to the matter of wealth and the other<lb/>objects of <del>the</del> general desire that which is regarded as<lb/>each mans <hi rend="underline">own</hi> should be secured to him, instead of <add>rather than</add><lb/>being <del>h</del> given to <del>any</del> this or that other man, or left to<lb/>be taken by any man so inclined.</p> <p> <note>13<lb/>This the object<lb/>of all arrangements<lb/>for the security<lb/>of property</note></p> <p> Well then <del>this is the object</del> of all the several arrangements<lb/>made for the security of property this is the<lb/>end in view: in all these cases <add>instances</add> it is the object &#x2014; how<lb/>
&sect;.3 Suits in pendency</note></p> <p><note>11<lb/>Prevention of<lb/>disappointment<lb/>this the only<lb/>justification of<lb/>the decision in<lb/>evil cases.</note></p> <p>Prevention of disappointment &#x2014; The <del>fo</del> more closely<lb/>the matter is considered, the more satisfactory will be a<lb/>man's conviction, that by this <del>short re</del> phrase short<lb/>as it is, is <del><gap/></del> excluded the only <!-- brackets in pencil -->[justifiable] reason why<lb/><del>to over</del> in relation to the matter of wealth and the other<lb/>objects of <del>the</del> general desire that which is regarded as<lb/>each mans <hi rend="underline">own</hi> should be secured to him, instead of <add>rather than</add><lb/>being <del>h</del> given to <del>any</del> this or that other man, or left to<lb/>be taken by any man so inclined.</p> <p> <note>13<lb/>This the object<lb/>of all arrangements<lb/>for the security<lb/>of property</note></p> <p> Well then <del>this is the object</del> of all the several arrangements<lb/>made for the security of property this is the<lb/>end in view: in all these cases <add>instances</add> it is the object &#x2014; how<lb/>
so ever indirectly and tortuously &#x2014; through ever so or many turnings<lb/>and <gap/>, aimed at.</p> <p><note>14<lb/>This being admitted<lb/>why not in each<lb/>instance give the<lb/.Judge a direct power<lb/>of giving such decisions.</note></p> <p>This being admitted &#x2014; why not, as here proposed,<lb/><sic>permitt</sic> <del>the Ju</del> in each instance the Judge, to <del>use</del> <gap/> his<lb/>nose at this object, in a direct and straight forward way<lb/>at once.  In respect of <gap/> &#x2014; of exclusion of delay,<lb/>the advantage (will it is assured <add>such the <gap/> is</add>) incontestable</p> <p>15<lb/>No evil to be<lb/>apprehended so great<lb/>as <hi rend="underline">under</hi> existing<lb/>system</note></p> <p>In respect of <gap/> of <sic>misdecision</sic> <add>for the <gap/></add> or any<lb/>evil greater than the existing system can any ground be assigned?</p><p>If any such then to <del>it must be a</del> the evil in question must<lb/><be an evil either of the 1<hi rend="superscript">st</hi> order or of the 2<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> order, as above<lb/>described <add>explained</add></p> <p>1. First then as to the ecil of the first order.  This evil<lb/>consists in the painful sense of disappointment produced by<lb/>the <del><gap/></del> loss or non obtainment on the part of a demandant,<lb/>loss on the part of a defendant.</p> <p>Now under the existing System &#x2014; under any existing<lb/>system, whatsoever the decision, evil in one or other of these shapes<lb/>can not but follow</p>
so ever indirectly and tortuously &#x2014; through ever so or many turnings<lb/>and windings, aimed at.</p> <p><note>14<lb/>This being admitted<lb/>why not in each<lb/>instance give the<lb/>Judge a direct power<lb/>of giving such decisions.</note></p> <p>This being admitted &#x2014; why not, as here proposed,<lb/><sic>permitt</sic> <del>the Ju</del> in each instance the Judge, to <del>use</del> thrust his<lb/>nose at this object, in a direct and straight forward way<lb/>at once.  In respect of dispatch &#x2014; of exclusion of delay,<lb/>the advantage (will it is assumed <add>such the assumption is</add>) incontestable</p> <p><note>15<lb/>No evil to be<lb/>apprehended so great<lb/>as <hi rend="underline">under</hi> existing<lb/>system</note></p> <p>In respect of avoidance of <sic>misdecision</sic> or <add>for the <unclear>apprehension of</unclear></add> any<lb/>evil greater than the existing system can any ground be assigned?</p><p>If any suit then be <del>it must be a</del> the evil in question must<lb/>be an evil either of the 1<hi rend="superscript">st</hi> order or of the 2<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> order, as above<lb/>described <add>explained</add></p> <p>1. First then as to the evil of the first order.  This evil<lb/>consists in the painful sense of disappointment produced by<lb/>the <del><gap/></del> loss or non obtainment of the money or <sic>moneysworth</sic><lb/>in question: non obtainment on the part of a demandant,<lb/>loss on the part of a defendant.</p> <p>Now under the existing System &#x2014; under any existing<lb/>system, whatsoever the decision, evil in one or other of these shapes<lb/>can not but follow</p>




<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 18:01, 20 October 2023

Click Here To Edit

1829 March 23
Petition

B 7 6
Supplement
(7 §.3 Suits in pendency

11
Prevention of
disappointment
this the only
justification of
the decision in
evil cases.

Prevention of disappointment — The fo more closely
the matter is considered, the more satisfactory will be a
man's conviction, that by this short re phrase short
as it is, is excluded the only [justifiable] reason why
to over in relation to the matter of wealth and the other
objects of the general desire that which is regarded as
each mans own should be secured to him, instead of rather than
being h given to any this or that other man, or left to
be taken by any man so inclined.

13
This the object
of all arrangements
for the security
of property

Well then this is the object of all the several arrangements
made for the security of property this is the
end in view: in all these cases instances it is the object — how
so ever indirectly and tortuously — through ever so or many turnings
and windings, aimed at.

14
This being admitted
why not in each
instance give the
Judge a direct power
of giving such decisions.

This being admitted — why not, as here proposed,
permitt the Ju in each instance the Judge, to use thrust his
nose at this object, in a direct and straight forward way
at once. In respect of dispatch — of exclusion of delay,
the advantage (will it is assumed such the assumption is) incontestable

15
No evil to be
apprehended so great
as under existing
system

In respect of avoidance of misdecision or for the apprehension of any
evil greater than the existing system can any ground be assigned?

If any suit then be it must be a the evil in question must
be an evil either of the 1st order or of the 2d order, as above
described explained

1. First then as to the evil of the first order. This evil
consists in the painful sense of disappointment produced by
the loss or non obtainment of the money or moneysworth
in question: non obtainment on the part of a demandant,
loss on the part of a defendant.

Now under the existing System — under any existing
system, whatsoever the decision, evil in one or other of these shapes
can not but follow



Identifier: | JB/081/100/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 81.

Date_1

1829-03-23

Marginal Summary Numbering

11-15

Box

081

Main Headings

petition for justice

Folio number

100

Info in main headings field

petitions

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

d7 / e7

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

street & co

Marginals

george bentham

Paper Producer

antonio alcala galiano

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

25887

Box Contents

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