JB/120/091/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/120/091/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
ChrisRiley (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>Long and Forgery</head>
 
<p>12 May 1802</p>
<p>In attributing to the <hi rend="underline">omission</hi> in question <del>the</del> <add>two</add><lb/>
<add>such appellatives at once are</add><lb/>
<del>double appellative</del> of <hi rend="underline">fraud</hi> and <hi rend="underline">forgery</hi>, the noble Lord<lb/>
unquestionably looked upon it <add>considered it</add> as being as <hi rend="underline">wilful</hi> (to<lb/>
use the common word) as clearly accompanied with<lb/>
culpable consciousness (to use a term which <add>though</add> to me<lb/>
appears more <add>apt/unambiguous</add> proper and expressive) as the omission<lb/>
consisting of in the discarding<lb/>
of so many important documents <add>as were discarded at different times by assortment</add> out of the <del><gap/><lb/>
laid</del> by M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> Long <add>out of the assortment exhibited by him</add> in my case&#x2014;<del>sometime before</del> <add>in some instances to</add> the<lb/>
Board, in others to the subordinate authorities.</p><p>In so grave and weighty a speech it is<add>+</add> that Your<lb/>Lordship beholds them.</p>


<p>But if in a grave speech two such appellatives<lb/>
<add>fraud and forgery applied</add><lb/>
have presented themselves as applicable with propriety<lb/>
to an omission of the kind in question in <add>observed</add> in the <del>pamphlet</del><lb/>
<add>republication of a pamphlet</add><lb/>
entertaining nothing but a mere set of opinions, and<lb/>
<gap/> opinions of a private man.&#x2014;With how much<lb/>
more indisputable propriety <add>then</add> must they appear applicable<lb/>
to an omission <add>a like omission</add> made out of <del>a cause</del> the body<lb/>
of evidence belonging to a cause, in <add>of</add> which the most<lb/>
inconsiderable and a comparatively <gap/> <add><del>portion of the subject matter</del></add> point<lb/>
<add>at stake,</add> was a mass of individual property to the amount of<lb/>
so many thousand points, to be decided upon by<lb/>
that Board&#x2014;accumulating in this instance the functions<lb/>
of Judge and Jury&#x2014;<del>executing</del> <add>exercising without appeal</add> the united powers of<lb/>
Judge and Jury, though unfortunately for the suitor, <lb/>
according to a mode of proceeding an idea <add>so repugnant</add> to the spirit<lb/>
as <add>well as</add> to the formalities of justice?</p>


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

Revision as of 15:11, 25 April 2016

Click Here To Edit

Long and Forgery

12 May 1802

In attributing to the omission in question the two
such appellatives at once are
double appellative of fraud and forgery, the noble Lord
unquestionably looked upon it considered it as being as wilful (to
use the common word) as clearly accompanied with
culpable consciousness (to use a term which though to me
appears more apt/unambiguous proper and expressive) as the omission
consisting of in the discarding
of so many important documents as were discarded at different times by assortment out of the
laid
by Mr Long out of the assortment exhibited by him in my case—sometime before in some instances to the
Board, in others to the subordinate authorities.

In so grave and weighty a speech it is+ that Your
Lordship beholds them.

But if in a grave speech two such appellatives
fraud and forgery applied
have presented themselves as applicable with propriety
to an omission of the kind in question in observed in the pamphlet
republication of a pamphlet
entertaining nothing but a mere set of opinions, and
opinions of a private man.—With how much
more indisputable propriety then must they appear applicable
to an omission a like omission made out of a cause the body
of evidence belonging to a cause, in of which the most
inconsiderable and a comparatively portion of the subject matter point
at stake, was a mass of individual property to the amount of
so many thousand points, to be decided upon by
that Board—accumulating in this instance the functions
of Judge and Jury—executing exercising without appeal the united powers of
Judge and Jury, though unfortunately for the suitor,
according to a mode of proceeding an idea so repugnant to the spirit
as well as to the formalities of justice?



Identifier: | JB/120/091/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 120.

Date_1

1802-05-12

Marginal Summary Numbering

3

Box

120

Main Headings

panopticon versus new south wales

Folio number

091

Info in main headings field

long and forgery

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

f3

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

39917

Box Contents

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