JB/050/056/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/050/056/001: Difference between revisions

RichardDavis (talk | contribs)
m 1 revision: Batch upload Box 50 - first attempt - fingers crossed
Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/050/056/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/050/056/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
Judicial Interprets to be certified. </lb><head><del>PROMULGATION</del> <del><add> NOTORIETY </add></del> COMPOSIT. COMMON LAW:</head><lb/><p> <Note> + 11.G.3.c.1.</note>A recent case that has <del> d</del>happened to attract<lb/>theattention of the Public, will serve very <lb/> well to illustrate what has <add> I propose</add> been proposed. </p>  <p> An Act is passed prohibiting persons of a certain <lb/> description from having in possession a certain <lb/> commodity beyond a certain amount, under <lb/> a specific as well as a pecuniary forfeiture +. </p><p> Aperson of the description in question contravenes <lb/> the Act: <del> but it so happens that the </del> <add> in the particular: and seizure is made </add> <lb/> <del>commodity in question</del> of the prohibited <sic>over-plus</sic> <lb/> but it so happens that the commodity <lb/> in question at the time of seizure has <add> inextricably </add> mingled <lb/> with anothr <del> qauntity </del> <add> commodity </add> not included in <lb/> the prohibition, &amp; consequently not <del> <gap/> </del> <add> liable </add> <lb/> to seizure.  The owner taking advantage of <lb/> this, <del> refuses to <sic>submitt</sic> to </del> <add> <del> withstands </del> opposes </add> the seizure: &amp; upon </p> <pb/> <!-- continues on top right page --> 2 <lb/><p>an indictment &amp; casestated it is determined <lb/> that the seizure <add> that the opposition was criminal or <add> unwarrantable </add> under the circumstances was <lb/> lawful. H <note> H Sh1.v.Ld Jst. Mawbey. </note> <del> and consequently the opposition is not </del> </p> <p> Now this <del> <gap/> </del>  <add> decision </add> one sees is a <unclear><hi rend='underline'>polychristo</hi></unclear> <lb/> applicable to all cases of specific firfeiture <lb/> where the thing forfeitable is inextricalbly <lb/> mingled with another - It was <sic>allways</sic> <add> implicitly </add> <lb/> contained in clauses <del> <gap/> or specific </del><add> inflicting such a <lb/> forfeiture: but never expressly announced <lb/> <unclear>till</unclear> by this decison, and <del> that </del> <add> then </add> in this <unclear>law</unclear> <add> not of </add> <lb/> original enactment, but of interpretation: <lb/> But as the interpretation is <add> <del> <gap/> </del> </add> more just than <add> it </add> <lb/> is obvious, there is as much reason, why it <add> should </add> <lb/> <del> be notified </del> <add> undergo an express notification </add> as why many <add> others </add> <lb/> should that have.  As it is not obvious, <add> by </add>  men <lb/> flattering themselves with being <add>in such a way as this for </add> to <gap/> <lb/> the Law, may be led into transgressions <add> upon </add> <lb/> which they could not have ventured if <add> they</add> </p> <pb/> <!-- bottom left page --> 3 <lb/><p> had known that the expedient would not save <lb/> them + <note> + v.a Story from Paris in the Ann. Register 1771. p.136. of the Tax on Hogs <add> brought into Paris </add> at so much per Herd. They were brought in without Heads. </note> this is one mischief: and of these men<lb/> some being detached; would prove too cunning <lb/> for themselves: and this is another mischief. </p> <p> <del> To </del> <add> It is therefore for the purpose on </add> obviating those therefore <add> in all cases </add> <del> it is </del> that I propose <lb/> the Judges should certify <add> to Parliament </add> a brief note of it <lb/>the <del> case to Parliament </del> <add> particular case cleared of all technical dross </add> 2<hi rend='superscript'>nd</hi> an Axiom in <lb/> the <de>most general </del> form <add> of the most extensive application </add> that can be given <lb/> it drawn from the reason of that case. <lb/> &amp; <del> from </del> that <add> it be </add> <del> from these Axioms at <gap/> </del> <add> <del>if approved of </del> </add> <lb/> <del> next succeeding Session , </del> it be standing rule <lb/> in the two Houses <del>3 </del> at every Session to <lb/> take into consideration the <del> <gap/> </del> Axioms <lb/> that shall have beencerified since the proceedings <lb/> &amp; to incorporate <del>them into the </del> <add> the purport of </add> substance of all <lb/> those Laws to whihc they may apply.</p> <pb/><!-- continues bottom right hand page --> <p> The form for example of such an Axiom <add> in </add> <lb/> the case <add> instance </add> in question might be this<lb/> "When a <del>Forfeit </del>  Specific Forfeiture is <gap/> <lb/> evry thing inextricably mingled with the <add> thing </add><lb/> forfeited <add> at the time of the seizure </add> passes along <del> way </del> with it. </p> <p> After this, if thought necessary might follow <add> be subject </add> <lb/> <del> explanatory </del> Aphorism or two to explain <add> in</add> <unclear>which</unclear> <lb/> case <del> one</del> 2 heaps of different commodities <add> shall</add> <lb/> be deemed inextricably mingled </p> <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
 
 
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}

Revision as of 15:45, 24 January 2013

Click Here To Edit

Judicial Interprets to be certified. </lb>PROMULGATION NOTORIETY COMPOSIT. COMMON LAW:

+ 11.G.3.c.1.A recent case that has dhappened to attract
theattention of the Public, will serve very
well to illustrate what has I propose been proposed.

An Act is passed prohibiting persons of a certain
description from having in possession a certain
commodity beyond a certain amount, under
a specific as well as a pecuniary forfeiture +.

Aperson of the description in question contravenes
the Act: but it so happens that the in the particular: and seizure is made
commodity in question of the prohibited over-plus
but it so happens that the commodity
in question at the time of seizure has inextricably mingled
with anothr qauntity commodity not included in
the prohibition, & consequently not liable
to seizure. The owner taking advantage of
this, refuses to submitt to withstands opposes the seizure: & upon


---page break---
2

an indictment & casestated it is determined
that the seizure that the opposition was criminal or <add> unwarrantable under the circumstances was
lawful. H H Sh1.v.Ld Jst. Mawbey. and consequently the opposition is not

Now this decision one sees is a polychristo
applicable to all cases of specific firfeiture
where the thing forfeitable is inextricalbly
mingled with another - It was allways implicitly
contained in clauses or specific inflicting such a
forfeiture: but never expressly announced
till by this decison, and that <add> then
in this law not of
original enactment, but of interpretation:
But as the interpretation is more just than it
is obvious, there is as much reason, why it should
be notified undergo an express notification as why many others
should that have. As it is not obvious, by men
flattering themselves with being in such a way as this for to
the Law, may be led into transgressions upon
which they could not have ventured if they


---page break---
3

had known that the expedient would not save
them + + v.a Story from Paris in the Ann. Register 1771. p.136. of the Tax on Hogs brought into Paris at so much per Herd. They were brought in without Heads. this is one mischief: and of these men
some being detached; would prove too cunning
for themselves: and this is another mischief.

To It is therefore for the purpose on obviating those therefore in all cases it is that I propose
the Judges should certify to Parliament a brief note of it
the case to Parliament particular case cleared of all technical dross 2nd an Axiom in
the <de>most general form of the most extensive application that can be given
it drawn from the reason of that case.
& from that it be from these Axioms at if approved of
next succeeding Session , it be standing rule
in the two Houses 3 at every Session to
take into consideration the Axioms
that shall have beencerified since the proceedings
& to incorporate them into the the purport of substance of all
those Laws to whihc they may apply.


---page break---

The form for example of such an Axiom in
the case instance in question might be this
"When a Forfeit Specific Forfeiture is
evry thing inextricably mingled with the thing
forfeited at the time of the seizure passes along way with it.

After this, if thought necessary might follow be subject
explanatory Aphorism or two to explain in which
case one 2 heaps of different commodities shall
be deemed inextricably mingled


Identifier: | JB/050/056/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 50.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

050

Main Headings

procedure code

Folio number

056

Info in main headings field

composit. common law judicial interpretn to be certified

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::l v g propatria [britannia motif]]]

Marginals

Paper Producer

caroline vernon

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

16047

Box Contents

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