★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
Auto loaded |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<!-- date, heading and marginal summaries in pencil --> <p>23 May 1805 1</p> <head> <del>Evidence</del> Procedure</head> <p><note>Demand<lb/> <sic>Ch.</sic> Demands</note></p> <p> (1 <note>§§.1 demand <gap/></note></p> <p><add>Book</add> <sic>Ch.</sic> of the various sorts of <add>judicial</add> Demands or Actions in general</p> <p><note><hi rend="underline">What</hi> and <hi rend="underline">Why</hi><lb/> two fair questions <unclear>receiving</unclear><lb/>care from the <lb/>Judge to the Suitor</note></p> <p><hi rend="underline">What</hi> <add>is it that</add> would you have me do <add>for you</add>? <hi rend="underline">Why</hi> <add>is it that I am</add> am I to do it?</p> <p> Such are the fundamental <add>initial/urgent</add> questions <add>competent</add> to be put in every<lb/> case by the <add>any</add> Judge to any <sic>demandant,</sic> immediately on his<lb/> presenting himself before the throne <add>seat</add> of justice. The what? and the<lb/> why? <add>The answer</add> To the first of these questions the answer gives the <hi rend="underline">service</hi><lb/> the nature of the service demanded, at the hands of the Judge; <add>to</add> the<lb/>other <add><sic>tother</sic></add> the nature of the <hi rend="underline">title</hi> — of the title on the ground of which <lb/>the demand is made.</p> <p><note>2<lb/> No Suitor too stupid<lb/> to be incapable of answering<lb/> them</note></p> <p>what <unclear>chance</unclear>, what day-labourer so ignorant, as to be<lb/> incapable of giving any sort of answer <add>satisfaction<a/dd> to either of these questions?<lb/> Is it possible that the answer should derive any additional <sic>satisfactoriness</sic><lb/> by passing through the medium <add> lips or the pen</add> of a lawyer or to a <lb/> string of lawyers? The <gap/> of the patient, is it from the<lb/> lips of the patient that an honest physician <add>the physicians</add> chooses to hear them,<lb/> or does he expect to find them conveyed <add>expressed</add> with more precision<lb/>from the mouth of the apothecary? or does he think it for the<lb/> advantage of the patient that instead of paying a visit to the patient<lb/> he should receive a visit from the apothecary?</p> <p><note>3<lb/>The answer can not<lb/> be made unsatisfactory<lb/> by passing through the<lb/> lips of a lawyer<lb/> no more that a patient<lb/> through an apothecary.<lb/> Hearsay evidence is not<lb/> better than <gap/> <lb/> <gap/> is not <gap/><lb/> by passing through<lb/> glasses</note></p> <p> And <gap/> is the lawyer to receive his information, but from<lb/> the suitor? and since at all wants of any information comes, it is<lb/> from the suitor that it must come, why <del>should it not</del> instead<lb/> of coming from <add>suitor to the lawyer, and from<lb/> the lawyer to the Judge, why <add>should it</add> not come <del>from</del> <add>to</add> the<lb/> Judge from the suitor in the first instance? Is <add>it that</add> hearsay evidence <add>information</add><lb/>is so much better than <del><unclear>shrill</unclear></del>. <add> immediate</add>? Is it that quality of <gap/><lb/> is so much augmented by any medium through which it passes <add> is filtered</add>?</p> | |||
23 May 1805 1
Evidence Procedure
Demand
Ch. Demands
(1 §§.1 demand
Book Ch. of the various sorts of judicial Demands or Actions in general
What and Why
two fair questions receiving
care from the
Judge to the Suitor
What is it that would you have me do for you? Why is it that I am am I to do it?
Such are the fundamental initial/urgent questions competent to be put in every
case by the any Judge to any demandant, immediately on his
presenting himself before the throne seat of justice. The what? and the
why? The answer To the first of these questions the answer gives the service
the nature of the service demanded, at the hands of the Judge; to the
other tother the nature of the title — of the title on the ground of which
the demand is made.
2
No Suitor too stupid
to be incapable of answering
them
what chance, what day-labourer so ignorant, as to be
incapable of giving any sort of answer satisfaction<a/dd> to either of these questions?
Is it possible that the answer should derive any additional satisfactoriness
by passing through the medium <add> lips or the pen of a lawyer or to a
string of lawyers? The of the patient, is it from the
lips of the patient that an honest physician the physicians chooses to hear them,
or does he expect to find them conveyed expressed with more precision
from the mouth of the apothecary? or does he think it for the
advantage of the patient that instead of paying a visit to the patient
he should receive a visit from the apothecary?
3
The answer can not
be made unsatisfactory
by passing through the
lips of a lawyer
no more that a patient
through an apothecary.
Hearsay evidence is not
better than
is not
by passing through
glasses
And is the lawyer to receive his information, but from
the suitor? and since at all wants of any information comes, it is
from the suitor that it must come, why should it not instead
of coming from suitor to the lawyer, and from
the lawyer to the Judge, why <add>should it not come from to the
Judge from the suitor in the first instance? Is it that hearsay evidence information
is so much better than shrill. immediate? Is it that quality of
is so much augmented by any medium through which it passes is filtered?
|
Identifier: | JB/057/085/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 57. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1805-05-23 |
1-3 |
||
|
057 |
evidence; procedure code |
||
|
085 |
[[info_in_main_headings_field::[evidence deleted] procedure]] |
||
|
001 |
book / ch. / of the various sorts of judicial demands or actions in general |
||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
e1 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
|||
|
18415 |
|||
