★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>LARCENY EMBEZZL<hi rend='superscript'>t</hi> | <head>LARCENY <sic>EMBEZZL<hi rend='superscript'>t</hi></sic> )( THEFT.</head> <p>simple in its <add>motive and</add> <hi rend="underline">operation</hi> as was <lb/>in its <hi rend='underline'>inception</hi>.</p> <p>Theft is where no delivery at all has <add>been</add> made of the subject — where <add>there is</add> no case<lb/> <add>law by which they are to <gap/> him</add> either express or implied has been given to the taker <add>so much as</add> to touch it</p> <!-- the next paragraph has been crossed through --> <p>Embezzlement is where <add>the concealment of a thing in which</add> a delivery has been made <add> of the/a specific subject</add> to the taker to employ it<lb/> after a <add>specified</add> manner <del>specified</del> <add> either implied or expressed</add> [for the benefit of the owner] — The use of it being p<lb/> <add><unclear>proposed</unclear> at this time of it's being in the custody of the taker</p> <p> Breach of Trust is where a delivery has been of the subject to the taker to <add> for the</add> <lb/> <add>purpose of his employing it</add> employ it after a manner not specified for the benefit of the owner</p> <p> Embezzlement is where a man converts a moveable to his own are without <sic>color</sic><lb/> Title <add>thereto</add> or <del><gap/></del> the consort of any one who has in the intention of not returning it.</p> <p> Taking <add> with consent & afterward</add> <del>in the <gap/> of</del> <add>now</add> not returning will not serve as the distinguishing characteristic<lb/. the presence of which determines an offence to be Embezzlement & the absence, <add> a <unclear>Breach</unclear> </add><lb/> Trust</p> <p> Taking <add> with consent</add> <del>with</del> pursuance of an <gap/> conceived at the time of taking not to return<lb/> will serve for that characteristic — But the question here recurs what different<lb/> <del><gap/> in the <del><gap/></del> <add> mischief</add> accompanies that distinction?</p> <p>I answer none, <del>only</del> <add> the only difference of any kind which should <gap/> the punishment is</add> that in the former case there is room given by the length of time<lb/> for <del>one</del> supposition of <del>an</del> <add> <gap/></add> ambiguity <add> intervening</add> respecting the Title, which in the better case<lb/>is not: for in that, the <gap/> of such a <gap/> demonstrates (unless express evidence<lb/> to the contrary is produced</p> <p>From use he has acquired the habit of confounding it in imagination with his own<lb/> the <add> <gap/> of the thirty</add> length of time which will <sic>admitt</sic> of the springing up of an <gap/> not <add> <gap/></add> <gap/><lb/> at the time of the first receipt indicates a <add>degree</add> confidence placed in the likes not <lb/> no necessary between stranger to stranger not such as a man is necessitated to put a<lb/> all men indiscriminately, but such as he puts not but <del>expr</del> <add> in consequence</add> of a choice which if <add>he</add><lb/> <del>the Law is entitled to suppose in every case</del> <add>miscarries in he may in some measure <gap/> it to himself.</add> depends on as its<add>for the</add> supplement. to its own provision.</p><p> <add>at setting out</add> I find myself obliged to make <add>adopt/take up</add> a distinction between Theft and Embezzlement — [they <add>have</add><lb/> been] Confounded, indeed, by <del>the</del> Judges <add> lawyers/Jurists</add> they have <add>however</add> been contemplated very differently by <add>the</add><lb/> Legislation; and having <add>being to have</add> occasion to observe <add>note</add> upon the difference, I must adopt <gap/> a <gap/><lb/> of nomination corresponding to it.</p> | ||
Theft is where no delivery at all has <add>been</add> made of the subject — where <add>there is</add> no | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | ||
LARCENY EMBEZZLt )( THEFT.
simple in its motive and operation as was
in its inception.
Theft is where no delivery at all has been made of the subject — where there is no case
law by which they are to him either express or implied has been given to the taker so much as to touch it
Embezzlement is where the concealment of a thing in which a delivery has been made of the/a specific subject to the taker to employ it
after a specified manner specified either implied or expressed [for the benefit of the owner] — The use of it being p
proposed at this time of it's being in the custody of the taker
Breach of Trust is where a delivery has been of the subject to the taker to <add> for the
purpose of his employing it employ it after a manner not specified for the benefit of the owner
Embezzlement is where a man converts a moveable to his own are without color
Title thereto or the consort of any one who has in the intention of not returning it.
Taking with consent & afterward in the of now not returning will not serve as the distinguishing characteristic<lb/. the presence of which determines an offence to be Embezzlement & the absence, a Breach
Trust
Taking with consent with pursuance of an conceived at the time of taking not to return
will serve for that characteristic — But the question here recurs what different
in the mischief accompanies that distinction?
I answer none, only the only difference of any kind which should the punishment is that in the former case there is room given by the length of time
for one supposition of an ambiguity intervening respecting the Title, which in the better case
is not: for in that, the of such a demonstrates (unless express evidence
to the contrary is produced
From use he has acquired the habit of confounding it in imagination with his own
the of the thirty length of time which will admitt of the springing up of an not
at the time of the first receipt indicates a degree confidence placed in the likes not
no necessary between stranger to stranger not such as a man is necessitated to put a
all men indiscriminately, but such as he puts not but expr in consequence of a choice which if he
the Law is entitled to suppose in every case miscarries in he may in some measure it to himself. depends on as itsfor the supplement. to its own provision.
at setting out I find myself obliged to make adopt/take up a distinction between Theft and Embezzlement — [they have
been] Confounded, indeed, by the Judges lawyers/Jurists they have however been contemplated very differently by the
Legislation; and having being to have occasion to observe note upon the difference, I must adopt a
of nomination corresponding to it.
|
Identifier: | JB/070/222/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 70. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
070 |
of laws in general |
||
|
222 |
larceny embezzlt & theft |
||
|
002 |
|||
|
text sheet |
2 |
||
|
recto |
|||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield emblem]]] |
||
|
23337 |
|||
