★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<!-- This page is organised in two columns each with a margin to the left --> <head> PROCEDURE SUMMARY III</head> <!-- the first section has been heavily crossed through --><p> CONSTABLE in case of his disobedience <add>refusal to</add> <gap/><lb/> power of <sic>commiting</sic> him at short hand — <sic>exst</sic> at <lb/> <sic>Specialing</sic> 43 <gap/> 7.</p> <p><unclear>CERTICRAKL</unclear> taken away <del>7.G.3 <gap/></del> <gap/><lb/>1st Absolutely<lb/> <note><del> Security<lb/> Bond a<lb/> Condition of the security<lb/> optional</del></note><lb/>2. Conditionally 3.<gap/> §§.6.5 G.35 §§ <gap/> <add> <gap/> <foreign>nisi</foreign> upon</add> unless Bond <del>be given</del> <lb/> with <gap/> for the <gap/> & costs or to <gap/> the<lb/> <sic>Deft)</sic><lb/>Firm)<lb/><gap/>guard) 1 Month it.<lb/> <!-- text adjacent to previous sentence but transcribed below to show bracketing --> Praestandum( Alternative at<lb/> ( <foreign>supra</foreign><lb/> (Positive <add>pay</add. for the<lb/> ( Forfeiture & Costs<lb/>(<gap/> <gap/>.<lb/> Again ( Generally in all <gap/> as in <gap/><lb/> either ( Before Conviction <del> G.3. <gap/> <add>(§§9)</add> </p> <!-- end of crossed through section --> <head> APPEAL from Conviction VIEW + v. IV.</head> <p><note> + View not traversable<lb/> <del><gap/></del> "gainsayable" said<lb/> parenthetically in + S Law<lb/> 522.</note></p> <p> Appeal in this case seems not to have been thought<lb/> of; <del> <sic>tho'</sic> this be the case of all others and to <gap/> it is<lb/> most necessary to be admitted</del> yet <add>this</add> being the proceeding<lb/> of all others the most summary, <add>The liberty of Appeal</add> it seems<lb/> <add>more</add> necessary to <sic>admitt</sic> of it <Add> <gap/> this cases.</p> <p><note> of all cases in which<lb/> the liberty of appeal<lb/> may seem necessary<lb/> this seems to be that<lb/> in which it is most<lb/> so.</note></p> <p> <add>In the 1<hi rend="superscript">st</hi> place</add> It is admissible or no? this is a question which the<lb/> words of the act where it treats of appeals paid<lb/> no light<del>for deciding</del> any farther than from<lb/> their generality, <add> the inference from</add> which is not always to be depended<lb/> upon.</p> <p><note> <foreign> Defideratur speciation<lb/> in 9. An.<lb/> 23 §§22.</note></p> <head>EVIDENCE — Parties <del>examinable on</del> <add> compellable</add> oath.</head> <p> In all <add><gap/></add> matters merely civil ( between party & party)<lb/> power might be committed to the Magistrate of<lb/> the <del> parties may</del> be examining the parties themselves<lb/> upon Oath not only <hi rend="underline">safely</hi> but consistently<lb/> with the dispositions <add>practise</add> of the Law in other occasions —<lb/> As in the Court of Chancery & the<lb/> Court of Conscience.</p> <p>For it will hardly be said, that a Justice of<lb/> the peace is less <del>competent</del> <add> fit to be entrusted</add> with such<lb/> <note> <add>worse</add> qualified for the exercise<lb/> of such a<lb/> power</note><lb/> than <del>the</del> <add>an</add> Examiner of the Court of Chancery<lb/> or a couple of <sic>Attornies</sic> dubbed Commissioners<lb/> for the occasion — still less than <del>the Commissioners</del> <add> those <gap/> Tradesmen</add><lb/> of whom [the <foreign>quorum</foreign> of Commissioners]<lb/> a Court of Conscience is ordinarily composed.</p> <p> Nor again will it be said, that there is <add>lots</add> more harm<lb/> <del>in putting</del> <add> where the</add> matter at stake is confined <add>limited</add> to a few pounds<lb/> <del> where <gap/> <gap/> <gap/> <gap/> at a stroke</del> <lb/> <gap/> <Add>in cases</add> where it ordinarily <add> frequently</add> amounts to many<lb/> thousands and <gap/> amount to any <add> still greater</add> sum that<lb/> can be named.</p> <p> This power for instance is granted under the 9. An. 23 §§22<lb/> which empowers a Justice to render satisfaction</p> <!-- start of right hand column --> | <!-- This page is organised in two columns each with a margin to the left --> <head> PROCEDURE SUMMARY III</head> <!-- the first section has been heavily crossed through --><p> CONSTABLE in case of his disobedience <add>refusal to</add> <gap/><lb/> power of <sic>commiting</sic> him at short hand — <sic>exst</sic> at <lb/> <sic>Specialing</sic> 43 <gap/> 7.</p> <p><unclear>CERTICRAKL</unclear> taken away <del>7.G.3 <gap/></del> <gap/><lb/>1st Absolutely<lb/> <note><del> Security<lb/> Bond a<lb/> Condition of the security<lb/> optional</del></note><lb/>2. Conditionally 3.<gap/> §§.6.5 G.35 §§ <gap/> <add> <gap/> <foreign>nisi</foreign> upon</add> unless Bond <del>be given</del> <lb/> with <gap/> for the <gap/> & costs or to <gap/> the<lb/> <sic>Deft)</sic><lb/>Firm)<lb/><gap/>guard) 1 Month it.<lb/> <!-- text adjacent to previous sentence but transcribed below to show bracketing --> Praestandum( Alternative at<lb/> ( <foreign>supra</foreign><lb/> (Positive <add>pay</add. for the<lb/> ( Forfeiture & Costs<lb/>(<gap/> <gap/>.<lb/> Again ( Generally in all <gap/> as in <gap/><lb/> either ( Before Conviction <del> G.3. <gap/> <add>(§§9)</add> </p> <!-- end of crossed through section --> <head> APPEAL from Conviction VIEW + v. IV.</head> <p><note> + View not traversable<lb/> <del><gap/></del> "gainsayable" said<lb/> parenthetically in + S Law<lb/> 522.</note></p> <p> Appeal in this case seems not to have been thought<lb/> of; <del> <sic>tho'</sic> this be the case of all others and to <gap/> it is<lb/> most necessary to be admitted</del> yet <add>this</add> being the proceeding<lb/> of all others the most summary, <add>The liberty of Appeal</add> it seems<lb/> <add>more</add> necessary to <sic>admitt</sic> of it <Add> <gap/> this cases.</p> <p><note> of all cases in which<lb/> the liberty of appeal<lb/> may seem necessary<lb/> this seems to be that<lb/> in which it is most<lb/> so.</note></p> <p> <add>In the 1<hi rend="superscript">st</hi> place</add> It is admissible or no? this is a question which the<lb/> words of the act where it treats of appeals paid<lb/> no light<del>for deciding</del> any farther than from<lb/> their generality, <add> the inference from</add> which is not always to be depended<lb/> upon.</p> <p><note> <foreign> Defideratur speciation<lb/> in 9. An.<lb/> 23 §§22.</note></p> <!-- ink line across the page --><head>EVIDENCE — Parties <del>examinable on</del> <add> compellable</add> oath.</head> <p> In all <add><gap/></add> matters merely civil ( between party & party)<lb/> power might be committed to the Magistrate of<lb/> the <del> parties may</del> be examining the parties themselves<lb/> upon Oath not only <hi rend="underline">safely</hi> but consistently<lb/> with the dispositions <add>practise</add> of the Law in other occasions —<lb/> As in the Court of Chancery & the<lb/> Court of Conscience.</p> <p>For it will hardly be said, that a Justice of<lb/> the peace is less <del>competent</del> <add> fit to be entrusted</add> with such<lb/> <note> <add>worse</add> qualified for the exercise<lb/> of such a<lb/> power</note><lb/> than <del>the</del> <add>an</add> Examiner of the Court of Chancery<lb/> or a couple of <sic>Attornies</sic> dubbed Commissioners<lb/> for the occasion — still less than <del>the Commissioners</del> <add> those <gap/> Tradesmen</add><lb/> of whom [the <foreign>quorum</foreign> of Commissioners]<lb/> a Court of Conscience is ordinarily composed.</p> <p> Nor again will it be said, that there is <add>lots</add> more harm<lb/> <del>in putting</del> <add> where the</add> matter at stake is confined <add>limited</add> to a few pounds<lb/> <del> where <gap/> <gap/> <gap/> <gap/> at a stroke</del> <lb/> <gap/> <Add>in cases</add> where it ordinarily <add> frequently</add> amounts to many<lb/> thousands and <gap/> amount to any <add> still greater</add> sum that<lb/> can be named.</p> <p> This power for instance is granted under the 9. An. 23 §§22<lb/> which empowers a Justice to render satisfaction</p> <!-- start of right hand column --> <p><note>EVIDENCE<lb/> Party's compellable</note></p> <p> Supposing it to be admissible, in the next place<lb/> how are the proceedings to be conducted? a question<lb/> the <add> difficulty</add> answers to which may contribute to forma <lb/> presumption that the former question <add> one</add> was never<lb/> seriously proposed.</p> <p> <add>unconcerned</add> Witnesses there are none — the <add>only</add> parties <add> necessarily</add> present (unless<lb/> by accident) are the delinquent & the Magistrate —<lb/> Whence then can <Add>is there</add> any account of the<lb/> transaction <add>to</add> come? from those parties, & from them<lb/> alone <Add>if from any.</add> But what power is there any where<lb/> given to <add>take this</add> examination? <del> then upon oath</del> <add> not any</add> time<lb/> What power of compelling them to <sic>submitt</sic> to it<lb/> As little. What Law which makes such evidence<lb/> competent even if given? Mot any <add> none at all</add> </p> <p><del>But I have gone too far <add.by the</add> supposing that the<lb/> matter can ever arrive at6 this stage<lb/> <note> in arguing as if it<lb/> could ever get so far</note></del><lb/> I speak hitherto up[on the general principles<lb/> of evidence: but whether <add> or no</add> the argument<lb/> <foreign>ex necessitate rei</foreign> might not here, as in<lb/> the case of an Action for <del>the</del> money robbed<lb/> against the County, dispense with those <unclear>principles | ||
</unclear> <!-- small area of paper torn away --><lb/> to <sic>admitt</sic> the evidence if the party <gap/><lb/> is what I would not take upon me to <gap/></p> <!-- ink line across the column --> <p> Takinga way the incompetency from the party<lb/> grieved will not be sufficient for the purpose of<lb/> justice — The restoration of competency might<lb/> to be reciprocal — which it is, by the <del><gap/> <add><gap/></add> p<gap/><lb/> of examining both.</p> <!-- ink line across the column --> <head> EVIDENCE<head> <p> Power of admitting accomplices<lb/> in an offence — in <del><gap/></del> a Justice with<lb/> consent of the Informer — <foreign> extat nullibo<lb/> seio.</foreign> Guard against abrasive <gap/> by a <unclear>declaration</unclear> <lb/> upon Oath <add> on the part of the Magistrate</add> of the Accomplices having been admitted as<lb/> <hi rend="underline">defective <sic>evidenture</sic></hi> — <sic>Tho'</sic> indeed at any rate there will <unclear>be</unclear><lb/> one <add>at least</add> punishment</p> <!-- heavy ink line across the column --> <del> <head><hi rend="underline">ACCOMPLICES specified</hi> <gap/> <gap/> 7. Dr</head> <p> Wood 9c v. <gap/> <gap/> <gap/></del></p> <!-- thick ink line across the column --> <p><del><head> ACCOMPLICES <add> Acco</add> <gap/>.</head></del>.</p> <p><del>INSTRUMENTS</del> <lb/> <note> <foreign>PERSONA<lb/> ACCESSORIA innocents tutoe</foreign></note><lb/> Screened <hi rend="superscript">+</hi> <note> viz. <foreign> Accessores<lb/> ab incolnsulto</foreign> — No<lb/> this won't do. for the<lb/> <hi rend="underline">infection</hi> is <hi rend="underline">present</hi>.<lb/> the case comes under<lb/> that of Exemption<lb/> by reason of ignorance.</note> by a protection<lb/> clause — where there <del>was</del> is a colour of Title<lb/> the instigator, either <add>infected</add> from his apparent <gap/.<lb/> or announced by add>his</add> positive assurances, <add> and</add> as<lb/> a Tenant cutting Timber — <foreign> Qu. ubi?</foreign><lb/> Desidera<del>tatur</del><add>-retur</add> and 6.G.3.48. Wood cutting<lb/> the general words, <del><gap/></del> <hi rend="underline">Tenants</hi> were deemed to be <lb/> <unclear>composited</unclear></p. <p><note> PROCEDURE.<lb/>SUMMARY — <lb/>Evidence.</note></p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | |||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | ||
PROCEDURE SUMMARY III
CONSTABLE in case of his disobedience refusal to
power of commiting him at short hand — exst at
Specialing 43 7.
CERTICRAKL taken away 7.G.3
1st Absolutely
Security
Bond a
Condition of the security
optional
2. Conditionally 3. §§.6.5 G.35 §§ nisi upon unless Bond be given
with for the & costs or to the
Deft)
Firm)
guard) 1 Month it.
Praestandum( Alternative at
( supra
(Positive pay</add. for the
( Forfeiture & Costs
( .
Again ( Generally in all as in
either ( Before Conviction G.3. <add>(§§9)
APPEAL from Conviction VIEW + v. IV.
+ View not traversable
"gainsayable" said
parenthetically in + S Law
522.
Appeal in this case seems not to have been thought
of; tho' this be the case of all others and to it is
most necessary to be admitted yet this being the proceeding
of all others the most summary, The liberty of Appeal it seems
more necessary to admitt of it this cases.
of all cases in which
the liberty of appeal
may seem necessary
this seems to be that
in which it is most
so.
<add>In the 1st place It is admissible or no? this is a question which the
words of the act where it treats of appeals paid
no lightfor deciding any farther than from
their generality, the inference from which is not always to be depended
upon.
<foreign> Defideratur speciation
in 9. An.
23 §§22.
EVIDENCE — Parties examinable on compellable oath.
In all matters merely civil ( between party & party)
power might be committed to the Magistrate of
the parties may be examining the parties themselves
upon Oath not only safely but consistently
with the dispositions practise of the Law in other occasions —
As in the Court of Chancery & the
Court of Conscience.
For it will hardly be said, that a Justice of
the peace is less competent fit to be entrusted with such
worse qualified for the exercise
of such a
power
than the an Examiner of the Court of Chancery
or a couple of Attornies dubbed Commissioners
for the occasion — still less than the Commissioners those Tradesmen
of whom [the quorum of Commissioners]
a Court of Conscience is ordinarily composed.
Nor again will it be said, that there is lots more harm
in putting where the matter at stake is confined limited to a few pounds
where at a stroke
in cases where it ordinarily frequently amounts to many
thousands and amount to any still greater sum that
can be named.
This power for instance is granted under the 9. An. 23 §§22
which empowers a Justice to render satisfaction
EVIDENCE
Party's compellable
Supposing it to be admissible, in the next place
how are the proceedings to be conducted? a question
the difficulty answers to which may contribute to forma
presumption that the former question one was never
seriously proposed.
unconcerned Witnesses there are none — the only parties necessarily present (unless
by accident) are the delinquent & the Magistrate —
Whence then can is there any account of the
transaction to come? from those parties, & from them
alone if from any. But what power is there any where
given to take this examination? then upon oath not any time
What power of compelling them to submitt to it
As little. What Law which makes such evidence
competent even if given? Mot any none at all
But I have gone too far <add.by the</add> supposing that the
matter can ever arrive at6 this stage
in arguing as if it
could ever get so far
I speak hitherto up[on the general principles
of evidence: but whether or no the argument
ex necessitate rei might not here, as in
the case of an Action for the money robbed
against the County, dispense with those principles
to admitt the evidence if the party
is what I would not take upon me to
Takinga way the incompetency from the party
grieved will not be sufficient for the purpose of
justice — The restoration of competency might
to be reciprocal — which it is, by the p
of examining both.
<head> EVIDENCE<head>
Power of admitting accomplices
in an offence — in a Justice with
consent of the Informer — extat nullibo
seio. Guard against abrasive by a declaration
upon Oath on the part of the Magistrate of the Accomplices having been admitted as
defective evidenture — Tho' indeed at any rate there will be
one at least punishment
Wood 9c v.
ACCOMPLICES Acco ..
INSTRUMENTS
PERSONA
ACCESSORIA innocents tutoe
Screened + viz. Accessores
ab incolnsulto — No
this won't do. for the
infection is present.
the case comes under
that of Exemption
by reason of ignorance. by a protection
clause — where there was is a colour of Title
the instigator, either infected from his apparent <gap/.
or announced by add>his</add> positive assurances, and as
a Tenant cutting Timber — Qu. ubi?
Desideratatur-retur and 6.G.3.48. Wood cutting
the general words, Tenants were deemed to be
composited</p.
PROCEDURE.
SUMMARY —
Evidence.
|
Identifier: | JB/050/007/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 50. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
050 |
procedure code |
||
|
007 |
procedure summary iii |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
2 |
||
|
recto |
|||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [lion with vryheyt motif]]] |
||
|
15998 |
|||
