JB/091/132/001: 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/091/132/001: Difference between revisions

Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/091/132/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/091/132/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/091/132/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p><!-- pencil -->26 Dec<hi rend="superscript">y</hi> 1806<lb/>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<!-- pencil --><head>Scotch Reform  To L<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> Grenville</head></p>
 
<p>Thus then stands the case of <hi rend="underline">costs</hi> considered<lb/>
 
in the character of a remedy against groundless Appeals.<lb/>
 
Costs properly so called, costs in the Westminster Hall<lb/>
sense of the word, never can <add>unless by accident</add> operate in that character,<lb/>
never were intended so to operate.  <hi rend="underline">Costs</hi> <del>in the</del> improperly<lb/>
so called, <hi rend="underline">costs</hi> in the House of Lords sense, were intended<lb/>
to operate in that character, do operate in that<lb/>
character to a certain degree, but that a very precarious<lb/>
and incomplete <add>inadequate</add> and precarious degree.  Against delay <add>procrastination</add><lb/>
on the principle of economy, on the ground of commercial calculation,<lb/>
it is <del>incapable</del> <add>unable</add>, for want of the necessary regard to<lb/>
proportions to afford any steady and generally adequate<lb/>
remedy:  against delay <add>procrastination</add>, through despair, in contemplation<lb/>
of insolvency, it is altogether <del>powerl</del> <add>impotent</add> powerless.</p>
<p><add>A Every sham which is an encouragement</add> Sham-checks are encouragements.  Every check<lb/>
<add>in the form of a penalty</add> is a sham check, where the penal sum <add>loss by penalty</add> being fixed or<lb/>
limited, the profit from <add>by</add> transgression is liable <add>capable of going</add> to extend beyond <add>outstretch it</add><lb/>
the mark.</p>
<p>In <add>the</add> English Equity procedure checks of this sort are<lb/>
not wanting:  in Scotch procedure these are abundant.<lb/>
Need it be said that where malâ fide suits, demands or<lb/>
defences are in question, these are the only sort of checks<lb/>
which fee-fed Judges can with any colour of reason <add>on any principle of common sense</add> be<lb/>
expected <add>either</add> to originate or to approve?  which on any<lb/>
principle of common sense can be expected to be found<lb/>
endurable by fee-fed Judges.</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}}

Revision as of 01:31, 19 February 2023

Click Here To Edit

26 Decy 1806
Scotch Reform To Ld Grenville

Thus then stands the case of costs considered
in the character of a remedy against groundless Appeals.
Costs properly so called, costs in the Westminster Hall
sense of the word, never can unless by accident operate in that character,
never were intended so to operate. Costs in the improperly
so called, costs in the House of Lords sense, were intended
to operate in that character, do operate in that
character to a certain degree, but that a very precarious
and incomplete inadequate and precarious degree. Against delay procrastination
on the principle of economy, on the ground of commercial calculation,
it is incapable unable, for want of the necessary regard to
proportions to afford any steady and generally adequate
remedy: against delay procrastination, through despair, in contemplation
of insolvency, it is altogether powerl impotent powerless.

A Every sham which is an encouragement Sham-checks are encouragements. Every check
in the form of a penalty is a sham check, where the penal sum loss by penalty being fixed or
limited, the profit from by transgression is liable capable of going to extend beyond outstretch it
the mark.

In the English Equity procedure checks of this sort are
not wanting: in Scotch procedure these are abundant.
Need it be said that where malâ fide suits, demands or
defences are in question, these are the only sort of checks
which fee-fed Judges can with any colour of reason on any principle of common sense be
expected either to originate or to approve? which on any
principle of common sense can be expected to be found
endurable by fee-fed Judges.


Identifier: | JB/091/132/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 91.

Date_1

1806-12-26

Marginal Summary Numbering

10-12

Box

091

Main Headings

scotch reform

Folio number

132

Info in main headings field

scotch reform to ld grenville

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

e4

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

iping 1804

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

bernardino rivadavia

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1804

Notes public

ID Number

29128

Box Contents

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