★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>1829. Aug. 12<lb/> Reformists reviewed.</head> <!-- numbers in pencil --> <p>16<lb/> (3</p> <p><note>Brougham this <gap/><lb/> v. <gap/> x<lb/> V. Restore Suits to Common Law<lb/> Page 85<lb/> If Brougham made<lb/>Master of the Rolls he<lb/> would propose transference<lb/> not from Equity to<lb/> Common law but from<lb/> Common law to Equity</note></p> <p><!-- finger pointing symbol --> Omitted this paragraph</p> <p> Now suppose the man by <del>whom</del> <add>whose character</add> more harm would<lb/> be done to any one of the Superior Courts of Law v Equity than<lb/> by any <add>that of</add> others whose <gap/> has in the Common Law Courts<lb/> suppose this man — <del><gap/> Master of the Rolls</del> <add> Brougham</add> he would<lb/> not have fees to <gap/> for him <add> many handed <gap/> from <gap/> <gap/></add> suppose the man made<lb/> Master of the Rolls — by what <add>sort of</add> <gap/> <add> of <gap/></add> would <del>be</del> <note> [-] used party <gap/><lb/>permitted under <gap/>.</note><lb/> <del>granted</del> in this case be made? transform from Equity<lb/> to Common Law, or transform from Common Law <del><gap/></del> to Equity<lb/>The <del><gap/></del> <gap/> <add>accuser</add> of a <unclear>Plowden</unclear> would it not <add>in this case</add> be necessary,<lb/> to the discovery of the <unclear>alternative</unclear> <add><sic>alterdness</sic></add> in the case?</p> <p><note>? If jury trial were<lb/> really the best the<lb/> demand for issues to<lb/> be tried would be<lb/> in every case of relative <lb/> importance in which <lb/> dispute had place</note></p> <p><!-- finger pointing symbol --> <hi rend="underline">Omitt</hi>ed this paragraph.</p> <p> "Send issues to be tried | <head>1829. Aug. 12<lb/> Reformists reviewed.</head> <!-- numbers in pencil --> <p>16<lb/> (3</p> <p><note>Brougham this <gap/><lb/> v. <gap/> x<lb/> V. Restore Suits to Common Law<lb/> Page 85<lb/> If Brougham made<lb/>Master of the Rolls he<lb/> would propose transference<lb/> not from Equity to<lb/> Common law but from<lb/> Common law to Equity</note></p> <p><!-- finger pointing symbol --> Omitted this paragraph</p> <p> Now suppose the man by <del>whom</del> <add>whose character</add> more harm would<lb/> be done to any one of the Superior Courts of Law v Equity than<lb/> by any <add>that of</add> others whose <gap/> has in the Common Law Courts<lb/> suppose this man — <del><gap/> Master of the Rolls</del> <add> Brougham</add> he would<lb/> not have fees to <gap/> for him <add> many handed <gap/> from <gap/> <gap/></add> suppose the man made<lb/> Master of the Rolls — by what <add>sort of</add> <gap/> <add> of <gap/></add> would <del>be</del> <note> [-] used party <gap/><lb/>permitted under <gap/>.</note><lb/> <del>granted</del> in this case be made? transform from Equity<lb/> to Common Law, or transform from Common Law <del><gap/></del> to Equity<lb/>The <del><gap/></del> <gap/> <add>accuser</add> of a <unclear>Plowden</unclear> would it not <add>in this case</add> be necessary,<lb/> to the discovery of the <unclear>alternative</unclear> <add><sic>alterdness</sic></add> in the case?</p> <p><note>? If jury trial were<lb/> really the best the<lb/> demand for issues to<lb/> be tried would be<lb/> in every case of relative <lb/> importance in which <lb/> dispute had place</note></p> <p><!-- finger pointing symbol --> <hi rend="underline">Omitt</hi>ed this paragraph.</p> <p> "Send issues to be tried whereas any difficulty occurs?<lb/> Not long indeed. If they did, <del>we <gap/></del> issues we start here<lb/> as plenty as blackberries, and for this <gap/> of one<lb/> Common Law turned <gap/> <del>no <add><gap/></add> reason would the</del> reason<lb/> if any, small interest would there be. Call the Court as<lb/> in Equity Court call the Court a Common Law Court — call<lb/> the <add> sort of</add> suit <del>an Equity</del> a sort of suit for Equity, call the sort<lb/> of suit a suit for Common Law, demand for <del>an issue</del> this<lb/> <del>would be<gap/></del> trial of the number of <gap/> there would <del><gap/></del><lb/> demand for trial of it after <add>as</add> the Jury mode, if that be the <add>were</add><lb/> best mode there would be, <del><gap/></del> in every case in which with <note> [1] claims transfer <gap/><lb/> no issue</note><lb/> relative to a <del><gap/></del> number of <gap/> of relative importance<lb/> any dispute had <add>has</add> places. This notwithstanding rare in <unclear>comparison</unclear><lb/> <add>into</add><del> as the <gap/> <gap/></del> <unclear>undirected</unclear> instance in the <del>order</del> <unclear>law</unclear><lb/>place <del>the</del> <gap/> the performance of one of those same <gap/><lb/> <gap/> and consequent Trials. Why? because for the purposes<lb/>it is in the small number of matters that the <gap/> law<lb/> place? No Not that because in the judgement of the relatively<lb/> learned it is only in the small number of instances is it the<lb/> <add>on both sides</add> capable of bearing the <sic>expence,</sic> and in respect of the <gap/><lb/> of the probability of right the defendants in this much <gap/> <gap/><lb/> <gap/><lb/> <!-- continues in margin --> for the delay, <del><gap/></del> place<lb/> together. <unclear>superiority</unclear> of<lb/> the good in respect of the<lb/> dead ends of justice, than<lb/> the evil in respect of the<lb/> collateral ends of justice.</p> | ||
1829. Aug. 12
Reformists reviewed.
16
(3
Brougham this
v. x
V. Restore Suits to Common Law
Page 85
If Brougham made
Master of the Rolls he
would propose transference
not from Equity to
Common law but from
Common law to Equity
Omitted this paragraph
Now suppose the man by whom whose character more harm would
be done to any one of the Superior Courts of Law v Equity than
by any that of others whose has in the Common Law Courts
suppose this man — Master of the Rolls Brougham he would
not have fees to for him many handed from suppose the man made
Master of the Rolls — by what sort of of would be [-] used party
permitted under .
granted in this case be made? transform from Equity
to Common Law, or transform from Common Law to Equity
The accuser of a Plowden would it not in this case be necessary,
to the discovery of the alternative alterdness in the case?
? If jury trial were
really the best the
demand for issues to
be tried would be
in every case of relative
importance in which
dispute had place
Omitted this paragraph.
"Send issues to be tried whereas any difficulty occurs?
Not long indeed. If they did, we issues we start here
as plenty as blackberries, and for this of one
Common Law turned no reason would the reason
if any, small interest would there be. Call the Court as
in Equity Court call the Court a Common Law Court — call
the sort of suit an Equity a sort of suit for Equity, call the sort
of suit a suit for Common Law, demand for an issue this
would be trial of the number of there would
demand for trial of it after as the Jury mode, if that be the were
best mode there would be, in every case in which with [1] claims transfer
no issue
relative to a number of of relative importance
any dispute had has places. This notwithstanding rare in comparison
into as the undirected instance in the order law
place the the performance of one of those same
and consequent Trials. Why? because for the purposes
it is in the small number of matters that the law
place? No Not that because in the judgement of the relatively
learned it is only in the small number of instances is it the
on both sides capable of bearing the expence, and in respect of the
of the probability of right the defendants in this much
for the delay, place
together. superiority of
the good in respect of the
dead ends of justice, than
the evil in respect of the
collateral ends of justice.
|
Identifier: | JB/011/135/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 11. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1829-08-12 |
not numbered |
||
|
011 |
law amendment |
||
|
135 |
reformists reviewed |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
d16 / e3 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
b&m 1829 |
||
|
arthur moore; richard doane |
|||
|
1829 |
|||
|
[[notes_public::"omitted this paragraph / omitted this paragraph" [notes in bentham's hand]]] |
3832 |
||
