JB/042/148/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/042/148/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
Robmagin (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<head>Ch. 13. 1827. Nov<hi rend="superscript">r</hi>. 20 copied.</head>
 
<head>1826. Aug<hi rend="superscript">t</hi> 22?</head>
<head>Constitutional Code</head>
<note>Ch. XII Judiciary Collectively S.9. Elementary functions</note>
<p>1.<lb/> Objection-imperative<lb/> functions stated as ne<lb/>-cessarily common to<lb/> all Judges- why more<lb/> necessary than in Da<lb/>nish Conciliatory<lb/> Courts?</p>
<p>2.<lb/> Answer By proposed<lb/> system, all the good<lb/> done by Conciliatory<lb/> Courts will be done,<lb/> and a great deal more<lb/> which they could not<lb/> do.</p>
<p>3.<lb/> In Conciliatory<lb/> Courts, Evidence in<lb/> many cases must<lb/> have been deficient<lb/> or partial.</p>
<p>4.<lb/> Of compulsory evidence<lb/> no means of procure<lb/>ment.</p>
<p>5.<lb/>Means of securing ge<lb/>nuineness and veracity,<lb/> none.</p>
<p>6.<lb/> The Judicatory many<lb/> seated, consequent<lb/> inconvenience.</p>
<p>7.<lb/> So waste of time to<lb/> Judges all but one</p>
<p>8.<lb/> True it is, that the<lb/> good done was done<lb/> without expence to the<lb/> public.</p>
<pb/>
<p>9.<lb/> No reason why the<lb/> saving made there<lb/> should not be made<lb/> under the here propo<lb/>see system.</p>
<p>10.<lb/> Of the economy result<lb/>ing from proposed<lb/> systems, strong pre<lb/>sumptive evidence</p>
<p>11. Though remuneration<lb/> given, it is cut down<lb/>to the smallest portion<lb/> each person will be<lb/> content to take.</p>
<p>12. Objections to small<lb/>ness of remuneration<lb/> the prodigious mass<lb/>of scientific infor<lb/>mations required on<lb/> the part of the Judge.</p>
<p>13.<lb/> Under proposed Penal<lb/> and Procedure Code,<lb/> the requisite scienti<lb/>fic information mi<lb/>nimized.</p>
<p>14.<lb/> Government Advocate's<lb/>functions-<lb/>1. In an imediate<lb/> Judicatory-<lb/>2. in an Appellate<lb/> Judicatory.</p>
<p>15.<lb/> Elementary Advo<lb/>cate's functions<lb/>1. In an imediate<lb/> Judicatory-<lb/>2. in an Appellate<lb/> Judicatory.</p>




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

Revision as of 23:12, 18 August 2013

Click Here To Edit

Ch. 13. 1827. Novr. 20 copied. 1826. Augt 22? Constitutional Code

Ch. XII Judiciary Collectively S.9. Elementary functions

1.
Objection-imperative
functions stated as ne
-cessarily common to
all Judges- why more
necessary than in Da
nish Conciliatory
Courts?

2.
Answer By proposed
system, all the good
done by Conciliatory
Courts will be done,
and a great deal more
which they could not
do.

3.
In Conciliatory
Courts, Evidence in
many cases must
have been deficient
or partial.

4.
Of compulsory evidence
no means of procure
ment.

5.
Means of securing ge
nuineness and veracity,
none.

6.
The Judicatory many
seated, consequent
inconvenience.

7.
So waste of time to
Judges all but one

8.
True it is, that the
good done was done
without expence to the
public.


---page break---

9.
No reason why the
saving made there
should not be made
under the here propo
see system.

10.
Of the economy result
ing from proposed
systems, strong pre
sumptive evidence

11. Though remuneration
given, it is cut down
to the smallest portion
each person will be
content to take.

12. Objections to small
ness of remuneration
the prodigious mass
of scientific infor
mations required on
the part of the Judge.

13.
Under proposed Penal
and Procedure Code,
the requisite scienti
fic information mi
nimized.

14.
Government Advocate's
functions-
1. In an imediate
Judicatory-
2. in an Appellate
Judicatory.

15.
Elementary Advo
cate's functions
1. In an imediate
Judicatory-
2. in an Appellate
Judicatory.



Identifier: | JB/042/148/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 42.

Date_1

1826-08-22

Marginal Summary Numbering

1-15

Box

042

Main Headings

constitutional code

Folio number

148

Info in main headings field

constitutional code

Image

001

Titles

Category

marginal summary sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

Penner

john flowerdew colls

Watermarks

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

13071

Box Contents

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