JB/122/185/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/122/185/001: Difference between revisions

Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/122/185/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


<!-- header and marginal note in pencil --> <p>12 July 1808 + Answer C<lb/><note>Answer<lb/>Query 3</note><lb/>(7</p> <!-- first paragraph crossed though in pencil --> <p>"Description of the Voucher" (Item 2 continued) <add>"1795 <sic>Feb.<hi rend="superscript">y</hi></sic> 14</add> To amount of Goods, being<lb/>"part of the sum of £17511. 11<hi rend="superscript">s</hi> 9<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> "<del.<gap/></del> £309. 13.7"<lb/>April 4<hi rend="superscript">th</hi> 231.14.10<lb/>"<hi rend="underline"><sic>Sept</sic> 22nd 356. 6. 0.</hi>"<lb/><!-- total in pencil --> £897.14.5.<lb/>"Observation of Query" <sic>N<hi rend="superscript">o</hi></sic> of the Query 3"</p> <p>Preamble to Query 3. The paper relating to the<lb/>"delivery of these articles <!-- deletion in pencil --><del>+</del> and purporting to contain copies <note><del>+</del></note><lb/>"of Invoices appearing to be an extract only from<lb/>"<sic>Mess<hi rend="superscript">rs</hi></sic> Booth and <sic>C<hi rend="superscript">o</hi></sic>'s Account boons and copies of<lb/>"copies in part only of the original Invoices and<lb/>"it being stated in the Accountant's pencil observation<lb/>"at the foot of <sic>Mess<hi rend="superscript">rs</hi></sic> Booth and <sic>C<hi rend="superscript">o</hi></sic>'s certified Account<lb/>"that the original Invoice never was in his hands.<hi rend="superscript">[1]</hi>"</p> <p><!-- bracketed number in pencil --> [1] Answer.</p> <p>Of the documents <add>which are here</add> in question, and which, so far they<lb/>want, were sent <add>to the Board</add> to serve as Vouchers, I have not preserved<lb/>a copy: but, from the tenor of <sic>M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic> Chief Inspectors<lb/>observation in relation to them, I take for granted<lb/>that on the five of them <add>or some of them</add> there is <del>something exp</del><lb/>some expression, <del>that</del> <add>which</add> in giving a sort of <hi rend="underline">colour</hi>, gave<lb/><hi rend="underline">occasion</hi> or <del>like observation</del> <add>the</add> expression of "<hi rend="underline">copies of<lb/>"copies</hi>"  But, <add>by</add> any expression that, on the occasion<lb/>in question, my happen to have been employed by<lb/>those manufacturers <add>or by any body else</add> <del>will not when the nature of the case</del><lb/><add>itself</add> will not be altered.</p> <p>"My conception of the matter <!-- deletion in pencil --> <del>and I speak of as a<lb/>lawyer and a lawyer that has not been inattentive to the<lb/>subject of evidence</del> is &#x2014; that, in the nature of the case,<lb/>any such <hi rend="underline">extract</hi>, signed by the same person as the<lb/>Invoice <!-- brackets in pencil -->(if signed by any body) would have been signed<lb/>by, has <add>to the purpose here in question,</add> as good a claim to the title of an <hi rend="underline">original</hi><lb/>document or voucher, as the Invoice itself.  It is<lb/>not (it is true) <hi rend="underline">the</hi> original Invoice nor <hi rend="underline">an</hi> original<lb/>Invoice: but where did <sic>M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic> Chief Inspector learn that no<lb/><add>other</add> [+]<lb/><!-- continues in margin --><hi rend="superscript">[+]</hi> other evidence than the<lb/><del>particular</del> <add>individual</add> paper, which<lb/>happened to be sent along<lb/>with, or on the occasion<lb/>of, a <del><gap/></del> <add>mass</add> of goods<lb/>dispatched from one place<lb/>to another.<del>would serve<lb/>as <add>good</add> evidence of the<lb/><!-- continues along the edge of the page --> particulars or <gap/>?</del> is entitled to be admitted, <del>in the Question of</del> <add>to serve as</add> evidence of the contents?  But of this more, when I come to the <del>concluding</del> requisition<lb/>with which this Query <sic>N<hi rend="superscript">o</hi></sic> 3 concludes.</p>       
<!-- header and marginal note in pencil --> <p>12 July 1808 + Answer C<lb/><note>Answer<lb/>Query 3</note><lb/>(7</p> <!-- first paragraph crossed though in pencil --> <p>"Description of the Voucher" (Item 2 continued) <add>"1795 <sic>Feb.<hi rend="superscript">y</hi></sic> 14</add> To amount of Goods, being<lb/>"part of the sum of £17511. 11<hi rend="superscript">s</hi> 9<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> "<del><gap/></del> £309. 13.7"<lb/>April 4<hi rend="superscript">th</hi> 231.14.10"<lb/>"<hi rend="underline"><sic>Sept</sic> 22nd 356. 6. 0.</hi>"<lb/><!-- total in pencil --> £897.14.5.</p> <p><!-- deletion in pencil --><del>Preamble to Query 3.</del> <add>"Observation or Query" <sic>N<hi rend="superscript">o</hi></sic> of the Query 3"</add></p> <p>"The paper relating to the<lb/>"delivery of these articles <!-- deletion in pencil --><del>+</del> and purporting to contain copies <note><del>+</del></note><lb/>"of Invoices appearing to be an extract only from<lb/>"<sic>Mess<hi rend="superscript">rs</hi></sic> Booth and <sic>C<hi rend="superscript">o</hi></sic>'s Account Books and copies of<lb/>"copies in part only of the original Invoices <!-- brackets in pencil -->[and<lb/>"it being stated in the Accountant's pencil observation<lb/>"at the foot of <sic>Mess<hi rend="superscript">rs</hi></sic> Booth and <sic>C<hi rend="superscript">o</hi></sic>'s certified Account<lb/>"that the original Invoices never was in his hands.<hi rend="superscript">[1]</hi>"]</p> <p><!-- bracketed number in pencil --> [1] Answer.</p> <p>Of the documents <add>which are here</add> in question, and which, so far they<lb/>want, were sent <add>to the Board</add> to serve as Vouchers, I have not preserved<lb/>a copy: but, from the tenor of <sic>M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic> Chief Inspectors<lb/>observation in relation to them, I take for granted<lb/>that in the five of them <add>or some of them</add> there is <del>something expre</del><lb/>some expression, <del>that</del> <add>which</add> in giving a sort of <hi rend="underline">colour</hi>, gave<lb/><hi rend="underline">occasion</hi> or <del>the observation</del> <add>the</add> expression of "<hi rend="underline">copies of<lb/>"copies</hi>"  But, <add>by</add> any expression that, on the occasion<lb/>in question, my happen to have been employed by<lb/>those manufacturers <add>or by any body else</add> <del>will not alter the nature of the case</del><lb/><add>itself</add> will not be altered.</p> <p>My conception of the matter <!-- deletion in pencil --> <del>and I speak of as a<lb/>lawyer and a lawyer that has not been inattentive to the<lb/>subject of evidence</del> is &#x2014; that, in the nature of the case,<lb/>any such <hi rend="underline">extract</hi>, signed by the same person as the<lb/>Invoice <!-- brackets in pencil -->(if signed by any body) would have been signed<lb/>by, has <add>to the purpose here in question,</add> as good a claim to the title of an <hi rend="underline">original</hi><lb/>document or voucher, as the Invoice itself.  It is<lb/>not (it is true) <hi rend="underline">the</hi> original Invoice nor <hi rend="underline">an</hi> original<lb/>Invoice: but where did <sic>M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic> Chief Inspector learn that no<lb/><add>other</add> [+]<lb/><!-- continues in margin --><hi rend="superscript">[+]</hi> other evidence than the<lb/><del>particular</del> <add>individual</add> paper, which<lb/>happened to be sent along<lb/>with, or on the occasion<lb/>of, a <del><gap/></del> <add>mass</add> of goods<lb/>dispatched from one place<lb/>to another.<del>would serve<lb/>as <add>good</add> evidence of the<lb/><!-- continues along the edge of the page --> particulars or contents?</del> is entitled to be admitted, <del>in the character of</del> <add>to serve as</add> evidence of the contents?  But of this more, when I come to the <del>concluding</del> requisition<lb/>with which this Query <sic>N<hi rend="superscript">o</hi></sic> 3 concludes.</p>       






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

Revision as of 10:56, 1 December 2020

'Click Here To Edit

12 July 1808 + Answer C
Answer
Query 3

(7

"Description of the Voucher" (Item 2 continued) "1795 Feb.y 14 To amount of Goods, being
"part of the sum of £17511. 11s 9d " £309. 13.7"
April 4th 231.14.10"
"Sept 22nd 356. 6. 0."
£897.14.5.

Preamble to Query 3. "Observation or Query" No of the Query 3"

"The paper relating to the
"delivery of these articles + and purporting to contain copies +
"of Invoices appearing to be an extract only from
"Messrs Booth and Co's Account Books and copies of
"copies in part only of the original Invoices [and
"it being stated in the Accountant's pencil observation
"at the foot of Messrs Booth and Co's certified Account
"that the original Invoices never was in his hands.[1]"]

[1] Answer.

Of the documents which are here in question, and which, so far they
want, were sent to the Board to serve as Vouchers, I have not preserved
a copy: but, from the tenor of Mr Chief Inspectors
observation in relation to them, I take for granted
that in the five of them or some of them there is something expre
some expression, that which in giving a sort of colour, gave
occasion or the observation the expression of "copies of
"copies
" But, by any expression that, on the occasion
in question, my happen to have been employed by
those manufacturers or by any body else will not alter the nature of the case
itself will not be altered.

My conception of the matter and I speak of as a
lawyer and a lawyer that has not been inattentive to the
subject of evidence
is — that, in the nature of the case,
any such extract, signed by the same person as the
Invoice (if signed by any body) would have been signed
by, has to the purpose here in question, as good a claim to the title of an original
document or voucher, as the Invoice itself. It is
not (it is true) the original Invoice nor an original
Invoice: but where did Mr Chief Inspector learn that no
other [+]
[+] other evidence than the
particular individual paper, which
happened to be sent along
with, or on the occasion
of, a mass of goods
dispatched from one place
to another.would serve
as good evidence of the
particulars or contents?
is entitled to be admitted, in the character of to serve as evidence of the contents? But of this more, when I come to the concluding requisition
with which this Query No 3 concludes.




Identifier: | JB/122/185/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 122.

Date_1

1808-07-12

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

122

Main Headings

Panopticon

Folio number

185

Info in main headings field

Answer C

Image

001

Titles

Category

Text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

Recto"Recto" is not in the list (recto, verso) of allowed values for the "Rectoverso" property.

Page Numbering

E7

Penner

Watermarks

TH 1806

Marginals

Paper Producer

Andre Morellet

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1806

Notes public

ID Number

001

Box Contents

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