JB/052/385/001: 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/052/385/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Keithompson (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<p>1826. July 20</p>
 
<head>Procedure <del>Penal</del> Code.</head>
<note>Ch. Inculture Application <unclear>Liticontestational</unclear><lb/>
S. 3 Judge Agenda consequential </note><lb/>
<p>The Prehension <gap/> <unclear>maybe</unclear><lb/>
either 1. Addendum or 2. Transductive<lb/>
to a Co Judicatory</p>
<note>7<lb/>
Example of need of attendance<lb/>
of supposed evidence<lb/>
holder the same as above</note><lb/>
 
<p>Art. Of the need of an Attendance requiring or a<lb/>
Prehension Mandate at the charge of a supposed Evidence<lb/>
holder <add>and proposed Evidence furnisher</add> examples are the same as in the case of a proposed <lb/>
Co Pursuer and the reluctance on both <add>every account</add> account will be more<lb/>
apt to have place</p>
 
<note>8<lb/>
Attendance requiring <lb/>
or prehension of a proposed<lb/>
Evidence furnishes choice<lb/>
to be made by judge on<lb/>
the comparative vexation<lb/>
or danger of <gap/><lb/>
decision</note><lb/>
 
<p>Art. <del>The</del> In regard to <del><gap/></del> attendance requiring or<lb/>
prehension at the charge of a proposed Evidence furnishes the<lb/>
<add>question</add> question for the consideration of the Judge will be by which <add>of two</add>courses<lb/>
the greater detriment would accrue to the interest <add><del>conjunct</del><add>aggregate</add></add> of both parties and<lb/>
the public: <add>to wit</add> by the vexation attached to the furnishing of the evidence<lb/>
or by the danger of <del>adverse</del><add>a</add> decision adverse to the interest of the<lb/>
Applicant pursuer for want of the evidence so desired</p>
 
<note>9<lb/>
Vexation to be considered<lb/>
on supposition of 1<lb/>
no compensation pecuniary<lb/>
2 compensation<lb/>
pecuniary given</note><lb/>
 
<p>Of the vexation attached to the furnishing of the desired<lb/>
evidence the quantum will be considered on each of two suppositions:<lb/>
to wit <del>want</del> <add>non-receipt</add> absence of
compensation pecuniary a<lb/>
quasi-pecuniary, and receipt of <del>each</del> compensation in such<lb/>
quantity and quality <add>form</add> as the Judge may think reasonable, and <lb/>
the applicant Pursuer able and willing to allow.</p><note>10<lb/>
To be considered also<lb/>
eventual need of transferring<lb/>
the <sic>burthen</sic><lb/>
from proposed defendant<lb/>
to the Pursue</note><lb/>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 






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

Revision as of 16:18, 15 March 2022

Click Here To Edit

1826. July 20

Procedure Penal Code. Ch. Inculture Application Liticontestational
S. 3 Judge Agenda consequential

The Prehension maybe
either 1. Addendum or 2. Transductive
to a Co Judicatory

7
Example of need of attendance
of supposed evidence
holder the same as above

Art. Of the need of an Attendance requiring or a
Prehension Mandate at the charge of a supposed Evidence
holder and proposed Evidence furnisher examples are the same as in the case of a proposed
Co Pursuer and the reluctance on both every account account will be more
apt to have place

8
Attendance requiring
or prehension of a proposed
Evidence furnishes choice
to be made by judge on
the comparative vexation
or danger of
decision

Art. The In regard to attendance requiring or
prehension at the charge of a proposed Evidence furnishes the
question question for the consideration of the Judge will be by which of twocourses
the greater detriment would accrue to the interest conjunct<add>aggregate</add> of both parties and
the public: to wit by the vexation attached to the furnishing of the evidence
or by the danger of adversea decision adverse to the interest of the
Applicant pursuer for want of the evidence so desired

9
Vexation to be considered
on supposition of 1
no compensation pecuniary
2 compensation
pecuniary given

Of the vexation attached to the furnishing of the desired
evidence the quantum will be considered on each of two suppositions:
to wit want non-receipt absence of compensation pecuniary a
quasi-pecuniary, and receipt of each compensation in such
quantity and quality form as the Judge may think reasonable, and
the applicant Pursuer able and willing to allow.

10

To be considered also
eventual need of transferring
the burthen
from proposed defendant
to the Pursue








Identifier: | JB/052/385/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 52.

Date_1

1826-07-20

Marginal Summary Numbering

7-10

Box

052

Main Headings

procedure code

Folio number

385

Info in main headings field

procedure code

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

d4 / e3

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

george bentham

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

17058

Box Contents

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