JB/071/058/004: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:02, 8 August 2021

C
Of Falshoods in general
Diff.

material facts therefore which may be avowed are as unlimited
in the cases of personation and forgery as in
that of simple falshood: and consequently the field of delinquency
as a myth.

In Perjury also there is a circumstance by which the universality of it's extent may appear
at first sight to the limited. The false facts which a
man can find occasion to aver in Perjury can be
such only to which he can be called upon to depose make
oath to. Now the cases in which a man can be called
upon to make oath are more or less limited such only as the Law entitles
men to call upon him to make oath to in. Now
these cases will be more or fewer, and more or less
extensive, according to the extensiveness of the legislator's
views and the supposed exigencies of the state. Some At one
tim s they there will be more extensive fewer of them: at another
time there will be more: but at no time will they the sum of them be so ample
as to cover the whole possible circle of facts that can might
be deposed to. by possibility be averred. This objection admitts of two
answers : 1st that though it were true in fact, it would
subtract nothing from the amplitude which it would
be proper to give attribute to the offence of perjury in supposition.

The business is all along to make provision for all possible
cases

To p.1715 at top.

<-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> {{Metatdahta:Template:PAGENeAME}}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''[{{fullurl:JB/071/058/004|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
 <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
+<p><head>C<lb/>
+Of Falshoods in general</head><lb/>
+<note>Diff.</note></p>
-''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
+<p>material facts therefore which may be avowed are as unlimited<lb/>
+in the cases of personation and forgery as in<lb/> that of simple falshood:  and consequently the field of delinquency<lb/>as a <unclear>myth</unclear>.</p>
-<head>C</head>
-<note>Diff.</note> <head>Of Falshoods in general</head>
-<p>
-material facts therefore which may be a[...?] are as  un <lb/>- limited in the cases of [...?] and forgery as in <lb/> that of simple[?] falshod - and consequently the field of de <lb/> - linquency as a myth[?]</p>
-In [...?] who there is a circumstance
-<note>- and the depen - <lb/>dence which the amplitude[?] of Per- <lb/>jury[...?] is in upon[?]<lb/> the accidental am - <lb/> - plitude of the /g/- <lb/> -t[...?] of legislation</note>
-<p>
-<lb/> by which the u[...?] of it's extent may appear <lb/> at first sight to the limited. The [..?] [...?] which a <lb/> whch a man can find occasion[?] to area in Perjury[?] can be<lb/> such only <del>[...?]</del> which he can be called upon to <del>[...?]</del> / [...?] / <lb/> oath to. Now the case in which a man can be called <lb/> upon to make oath are <del>[...?] </del> / such only as the Law entiles[?] <lb/> men to call upon him to make oath in. Now <lb/> these cases will be more or Lower, and more or [...?] <lb/> infinitive, according to the [...?] of the legislator[?] <lb/> [...?] and the supported emergencies[?] of the Note. <del>[...?]</del> / At one / <lb/> [...?] <del>they</del> / there / will be <del> more [?[ </del> / lower / <del>[...?]</del>: of them: at another <lb/> time there will be more : but at now time will the same[?] of them <del>[...?]</del> be so[?] complete <lb/> as to cover the whole [...?] circle of facts that <del>can[?]</del>/ [...?]<lb/> by [...?] be averred[?]</p>
-<p>
-This objection admitts[?] of two <lb/> answers : 1-l[??] that though it were here in fact, it would <lb/> subtract [...?] from the [...?] which it would be [...?] to <del>[...?]</del> / aff[...?] to the offence of injury in [...?] <lb/> This [...?] to make [...?]/ all along/  for all [...?]</p>
-<p>Top 15 cases [...?]</p>
+In Perjury also there is a circumstance
+by which the universality of it's extent may appear<lb/>
+at first sight to the limited.  The false facts which a<lb/>
+man can find occasion to aver in Perjury can be<lb/>
+such only <del>to</del> which he can be called upon to <del>depose</del> <add>make</add><lb/>
+oath <add>to</add>.  Now the cases in which a man can be called<lb/>
+upon to make oath are <del>more or less limited</del> <add>such only as the Law</add> entitles<lb/>
+men to call upon him to make oath <del>to</del> <add>in</add>.  Now<lb/>
+these cases will be more or fewer, and more or less<lb/>
+extensive, according to the extensiveness of the legislator's<lb/>
+views and the supposed exigencies of the state.  <del>Some</del> <add>At one</add><lb/>
+tim <del>s they</del> <add>there</add> will be <del>more extensive</del> <add>fewer</add> of them:  at another<lb/>
+time there will be more:  but at no time will <del>they</del> <add>the sum of them</add> be so ample<lb/>
+as to cover the whole possible circle of facts that <del>can</del> <add>might</add><lb/>
+<del>be <unclear>deposed</unclear> to.</del> <add>by possibility be averred.</add>  This objection admitts of two<lb/>
+answers : 1<hi rend="superscript">st</hi> that though it were true in fact, it would<lb/>
+subtract nothing from the amplitude which it would<lb/>
+be proper to <del>give</del> <add>attribute</add> to the offence of perjury in supposition.<lb/>
+The business is <add><del><gap/></del> all along</add> to make provision for all possible<lb/><add>cases</add></p>
+<p><note>To p.<del>17</del><add>15</add> at top.</note></p>
 <-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
-{{Metatdahta:{{PAGENeAME}}}}{{In_Progress}}
+{{Metatdahta:{{PAGENeAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}}

Views

JB/071/058/004: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:02, 8 August 2021

Navigation

Search