★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
Auto loaded |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
'' | <head>BURGLARY</head> <p> It is [curious] <add> amusing & not unconstructive</add> to observe how the compiler Hawkins begins one of his pages, on the <add> subject</add> <lb/>of this offence, & how he ends it. <hi rend="superscript">+</hi> <note> + p.102 1 Hawk</note> <unclear><hi rend="superscript">or</hi></unclear> As to the second point (says he) viz: <add> ion the beginning</add> whether<lb/> there must be both an <hi rend="underline">entry</hi> and <hi rend="underline">breaking </hi>; <hi rend="underline">notwithstanding some loose opinions to <add> the </add> </hi><lb/> <hi rend="underline">contrary</hi>, there seems to be no good cause to doubt but that both are requested to <sic>compleat</sic><lb/> this offence ——— Thus he begins it — <add> This is the beginning</add> at <del> the end <gap/></del> <add> he ends with handing in a decision which flatly</add> contradicts himself <add>with</add><lb/> all the tranquillity <gap/>-<gap/>: <add " Also it hath been adjudged, that there were <add> no</add> <lb/> "less guilty [of Burglary] who having a design to rob a House, took Lodgings <add> in</add> <lb/>"it, and then fell on the Landlord and robbed him; for the Law will not <unclear>endure</unclear><lb/> "to have its' Justice defrauded by such evasions. And for the like reason, a<lb/> "portion, it has been resolved, that where persons, intending to rob a House, raise<lb/> "a Hue and cry, and prevailed with a Constable to make a Search in the<lb/>"House, and having got in by that means, <hi rend="underline">with the Owner's consent</hi>, <add> i.e. without any breaking at all]</add> bound the <add> Constable</add><lb/> "and robbed the Inhabitants, they were guilty of Burglary; <add> He <gap/> of recounting this contradiction when he adds</add> <hi rend="underline">for</hi> there cannot<lb/. "be a greater affront to Public Justice, than to make use of legal process <add>as</add><lb/> "a State for such villainous purposes; and <hi rend="underline">therefore</hi> the whole Act is <unclear>esteemed</unclear> <foreign> <gap/><lb/> "at ignition"</foreign> — <del> And what of that?</del> <hi rend="underline">It's all very wrong as no body can doubt</hi> but, <lb/> where's the Burglary all the whole? It is curious to observe how this reasoning <add>hangs</add><lb/> together — he undertakes <del> to prove <add><gap/></add> this last mentioned offence to prove it</del> <add> to prove the transaction</add> Burglary</p> <p> The business is to prove this, Burglary — In Burglary, a breaking<lb/> and Burglary <add> to make it such</add> he has been just observing, breaking is necessary: <add> now the point is</add> nothing is broken <lb/> <del> But it was very wrong from the beginning</del> <add> However <gap/> it is a more villainous affair</add> to <del>affront</del> <add> abuse</add> the <add> a</add> legal process, than<lb/> there was a breaking & there was Burglary.</p> <p> I am truly sorry to observe, that in a performance of far superior merit, we <add> have</add><lb/> a page on the same subject <hi rend="superscript">#</hi> <note> # 4 Cam. 226<lb/> An Author of a very different <hi rend="underline"><gap/></hi> <add>class</add> [<del>complexion</del>] <lb/> Who embellishes every thing<lb/> he touches </note> begun and ended in the same manner. "As to<lb/> the manner of committing Burglary; <add> says the Author of the Commentaries</add> there must be both a <hi rend="underline">breaking</hi> and <unclear>entering</unclear><lb/> to complete it x x x x There must be an <hi rend="underline">actual</hi> breaking; not a mere <add> legal</add> <foreign> <gap/><lb/> fragit</foreign> (by leaping over invisible ideal boundaries which may constitute a <gap/><lb/> trespass) but a <hi rend="underline">substantial and forcible <unclear>inception</unclear></hi>" — then comes a string of <unclear>decisions</unclear><lb/> ending with the two above specified — "All these <add> entries</add> continues the Author have <gap/><lb/> "adjudged Burglaries, <sic>tho'ugh</sic> <hi rend="underline">there was no actual breaking</hi>: <hi rend="underline">for</hi> the Law <add>will</add> <lb/> has considered to give the stamp of his authority to this <add> a like</add> mass of contradictions.</p> <p><note> were these conditions as universal<lb/> in other subjects, as without necessity<lb/> they are general <add> frequent</add> in Law, language<lb/>< would no longer serve as an medium<lb/> of communication.</note></p> <p> <note>I shall not stay to compare, distinguish,<lb/> reconcile or if <Add>where</add. irreconcilable, reprobate<lb/> <del>all</del> the decisions sentient & <gap/><lb/> that have been pronounced or even<lb/>< that are now recognized upon the <add> every</add> <del> subject of which I had</del> <add> indeed any heads/part division. topic</add> for<lb/> what industry in the writer or<lb?> what patience in the reader would<lb/> be sufficient for such a taste?<lb/> nor shall I <del>amuse</del> <add> <gap/></add> myself with <lb/> applying a <sic>plaister</sic> to every wound<lb/> which common-Sense has received<lb/> in the Chance-medley<lb/> of opinions: Any man of<lb/> tolerable sagacity will be able<lb?> to do it for himself by the general<lb/> recipes I have given, if there<lb/> he is <add> they become</add> then any virtue: if not,<lb/> their number is already but too<lb/> great.</note></p> | ||
<!-- at the bottom of the page --> <p> [BR][2][</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | ||
BURGLARY
It is [curious] amusing & not unconstructive to observe how the compiler Hawkins begins one of his pages, on the subject
of this offence, & how he ends it. + + p.102 1 Hawk or As to the second point (says he) viz: ion the beginning whether
there must be both an entry and breaking ; notwithstanding some loose opinions to the
contrary, there seems to be no good cause to doubt but that both are requested to compleat
this offence ——— Thus he begins it — This is the beginning at the end he ends with handing in a decision which flatly contradicts himself with
all the tranquillity -: no
"less guilty [of Burglary] who having a design to rob a House, took Lodgings in
"it, and then fell on the Landlord and robbed him; for the Law will not endure
"to have its' Justice defrauded by such evasions. And for the like reason, a
"portion, it has been resolved, that where persons, intending to rob a House, raise
"a Hue and cry, and prevailed with a Constable to make a Search in the
"House, and having got in by that means, with the Owner's consent, i.e. without any breaking at all] bound the Constable
"and robbed the Inhabitants, they were guilty of Burglary; He of recounting this contradiction when he adds for there cannot<lb/. "be a greater affront to Public Justice, than to make use of legal process as
"a State for such villainous purposes; and therefore the whole Act is esteemed
"at ignition" — And what of that? It's all very wrong as no body can doubt but,
where's the Burglary all the whole? It is curious to observe how this reasoning hangs
together — he undertakes to prove this last mentioned offence to prove it to prove the transaction Burglary
The business is to prove this, Burglary — In Burglary, a breaking
and Burglary to make it such he has been just observing, breaking is necessary: now the point is nothing is broken
But it was very wrong from the beginning However it is a more villainous affair to affront abuse the a legal process, than
there was a breaking & there was Burglary.
I am truly sorry to observe, that in a performance of far superior merit, we have
a page on the same subject # # 4 Cam. 226
An Author of a very different class [complexion]
Who embellishes every thing
he touches begun and ended in the same manner. "As to
the manner of committing Burglary; says the Author of the Commentaries there must be both a breaking and entering
to complete it x x x x There must be an actual breaking; not a mere legal
fragit (by leaping over invisible ideal boundaries which may constitute a
trespass) but a substantial and forcible inception" — then comes a string of decisions
ending with the two above specified — "All these entries continues the Author have
"adjudged Burglaries, tho'ugh there was no actual breaking: for the Law will
has considered to give the stamp of his authority to this a like mass of contradictions.
were these conditions as universal
in other subjects, as without necessity
they are general frequent in Law, language
< would no longer serve as an medium
of communication.
I shall not stay to compare, distinguish,
reconcile or if where</add. irreconcilable, reprobate
all the decisions sentient &
that have been pronounced or even
< that are now recognized upon the <add> every subject of which I had indeed any heads/part division. topic for
what industry in the writer or<lb?> what patience in the reader would
be sufficient for such a taste?
nor shall I amuse myself with
applying a plaister to every wound
which common-Sense has received
in the Chance-medley
of opinions: Any man of
tolerable sagacity will be able<lb?> to do it for himself by the general
recipes I have given, if there
he is they become then any virtue: if not,
their number is already but too
great.
[BR][2][
|
Identifier: | JB/070/264/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 70. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
070 |
of laws in general |
||
|
264 |
burglary |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
c1 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::[gr motif] [britannia with shield motif]]] |
||
|
23379 |
|||
