★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>182<del>7</del>8 <del><sic>Novr.</sic> <sic>Jan<hi rend="superscript">y</hi> /sic> 22<lb/>Procedure Penal Code</head> <!-- page numbers in pencil --> <p>5<lb/><sic.Ch.</sic> Application</note><lb/>(2 <note>§. Quarrel termination<lb/>existing System<lb/>limitations. Courts Danish</note></p> <p><note>9<lb/>Danish conciliatory courts<lb/>simplicity though with<lb/>a host of disadvantages</note></p> <p>By <del>the <gap/></del> so simple an arrangement as that of the<lb/>judicial meeting <add>of the parties</add> In Denmark under the <del><gap/></del> Judicatory called<lb/>Reconciliation Courts <del>two thirds</del> in the judicial district in<lb/>question for two thirds to three fourths were struck out<lb?>of the list <add>number</add> of the <del>cases</del> suits carried before the judicature<lb/>acting under the technical system. This under a host of<lb/>disadvantages <add>of</add> one of which the bare mention may <add>will be</add> seen<lb/>to render unnecessary all <gap/> of the rest. No power had<lb/>that judicatory to give execution and effect to its own decrees!</p> <p><note>10<lb/>Notwithstanding these<lb/>disadvantages benefits<lb/>derived from these courts</note></p> <p>If under such disadvantage success was thus extra<lb/>sure what may it not be requisite to be under a judiciary<lb/>made procedure system possessing in a degree so high above<lb/>every thing as yet encompassed the power as well as the<lb/>inducement to discover and ascertain what in each version<lb/>ought to be done, and <del>the po</del> when ascertained<lb?>the power of causing it to be done?</p> <!-- line in pencil across the page --><p><note>11<lb/>By common law counter-demands<lb/>restricted<lb/>within as narrow<lb/limits as could be done</note></p> <p>To receive in no case a counterdemand as<lb/>a set off to a claimant would have been <add>on the part of the Common Law Court</add> an injustice to<lb/>be endurable. What <gap/>was to render the field of the<lb/>applicant as limited as possible <add>was deemed advisable</add> as limited, and thence<lb/>as indeterminate. For thereupon came the <add>poor</add> question. whether<lb/>in the case of the demand in question, a counterdemand to<lb/>the object in question should be. But, unless it were <del>b</del><lb/>on account of the delay with which the <del>proof of</del> character of<lb/>the evidence in support of the counterdemand would be extended. if in any one case a counterdemand is allowed,<lb/><del>it</del> why not in every other.</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}} |
18278 Novr. <sic>Jany /sic> 22
Procedure Penal Code
5
<sic.Ch.</sic> Application</note>
(2 §. Quarrel termination
existing System
limitations. Courts Danish
9
Danish conciliatory courts
simplicity though with
a host of disadvantages
By the so simple an arrangement as that of the
judicial meeting of the parties In Denmark under the Judicatory called
Reconciliation Courts two thirds in the judicial district in
question for two thirds to three fourths were struck out<lb?>of the list number of the cases suits carried before the judicature
acting under the technical system. This under a host of
disadvantages of one of which the bare mention may will be seen
to render unnecessary all of the rest. No power had
that judicatory to give execution and effect to its own decrees!
10
Notwithstanding these
disadvantages benefits
derived from these courts
If under such disadvantage success was thus extra
sure what may it not be requisite to be under a judiciary
made procedure system possessing in a degree so high above
every thing as yet encompassed the power as well as the
inducement to discover and ascertain what in each version
ought to be done, and the po when ascertained<lb?>the power of causing it to be done?
11
By common law counter-demands
restricted
within as narrow<lb/limits as could be done
To receive in no case a counterdemand as
a set off to a claimant would have been on the part of the Common Law Court an injustice to
be endurable. What was to render the field of the
applicant as limited as possible was deemed advisable as limited, and thence
as indeterminate. For thereupon came the poor question. whether
in the case of the demand in question, a counterdemand to
the object in question should be. But, unless it were b
on account of the delay with which the proof of character of
the evidence in support of the counterdemand would be extended. if in any one case a counterdemand is allowed,
it why not in every other.
Identifier: | JB/052/311/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 52. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
1828-01-22 |
9-11 |
||
052 |
penal code; procedure code |
||
311 |
procedure penal code |
||
001 |
|||
text sheet |
1 |
||
recto |
d5 / e2 |
||
jeremy bentham |
j whatman turkey mill 1827 |
||
jonathan blenman |
|||
1827 |
|||
16984 |
|||