★ 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>1828 <sic>Aug.</sic> 27<lb/>Blackstone</head> <!-- in pencil --> <p>7 <note><hi rend="underline">7</hi><lb/>Ch.2. Universal Jurisprudence<lb/><gap/> Rights &<lb/>Possession</note></p> <p>2. But if coat in his<lb/>house & door locked,<lb/>you have no right to<lb/>break it pen & take<lb/>your coat.</note></p> <p.2. But suppose <add>the coat to be in his house, and</add> the door of the <add>house</add> locked against you<lb/>are you then in legal possession of the coat? have you in<lb/>this case a right to break into his house by force, and<lb/><add>then</add> take possession of the coat? Not you <gap/>. This seems clear<lb/><add>enough: still more so then it is, that when as above you<lb/>take the coat from the bush.</add></p> <p><note>3. But if door open &<lb/><sic>taylor</sic> standing there, can<lb/>you push by to get your<lb/>coat? doubt, probably not.</note></p> <p>3. but now suppose the door <gap/> <gap/> instead.<lb/>but the <sic>taylor</sic> or a one of his standing with the<lb?>door <del>and for</del> refuses to let you have the coat, and forbidding<lb/>your entrance: in this case <add>state of things</add> is the coat in your possession?<lb/>in this state of things have you a right, spite of the prohibition,<lb/><del>and</del> to push in, <gap/> the house for your coat<lb/>and take it? Here would be great doubts: <gap/> <gap/><lb/>in the negative.</p> <p><note>Can you strike him?<lb/>No, no.</note></p> <p>Could you instead being <gap/> at his act, for<lb/>the purpose of getting in to his house, <del>beat</del> <add>apply a blow</add> the opponent?<lb/>Under law no it is, assuredly no: no, nor so much as<lb/>a <gap/>: for <add>beyond dispute</add> a strike is an assault.</p> <p><note>Law as it ought to be<lb><sic>wd</sic> try to exclude these<lb/>doubts not Law as it is.</note></p> <p>Note that all doubts of this <gap/>, Law as it<Lb/>ought to be would look after, and <del>do</del. by appropriate <gap/>,<lb/>do its utmost to exclude. Law <hi rend="underline">as it is</hi> <gap/> both<lb/>things. By the solution of such doubts, security, says its<lb/><gap/> would be destroyed.</p> <p><note>Go on p74. Analysis</note></p> <p>☞ Go on to speak as per Analysis p 74 of "<gap/> of <gap/><lb/>"in <gap/> and <gap/> abatement of nuisance. distress<lb/>"for real or damage, securing of <gap/> &c"</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}} | ||
1828 Aug. 27
Blackstone
7 7
Ch.2. Universal Jurisprudence
Rights &
Possession
2. But if coat in his
house & door locked,
you have no right to
break it pen & take
your coat.</note>
<p.2. But suppose the coat to be in his house, and the door of the house locked against you
are you then in legal possession of the coat? have you in
this case a right to break into his house by force, and
then take possession of the coat? Not you . This seems clear
enough: still more so then it is, that when as above you
take the coat from the bush.
3. But if door open &
taylor standing there, can
you push by to get your
coat? doubt, probably not.
3. but now suppose the door instead.
but the taylor or a one of his standing with the<lb?>door and for refuses to let you have the coat, and forbidding
your entrance: in this case state of things is the coat in your possession?
in this state of things have you a right, spite of the prohibition,
and to push in, the house for your coat
and take it? Here would be great doubts:
in the negative.
Can you strike him?
No, no.
Could you instead being at his act, for
the purpose of getting in to his house, beat apply a blow the opponent?
Under law no it is, assuredly no: no, nor so much as
a : for beyond dispute a strike is an assault.
Law as it ought to be<lb>wd try to exclude these
doubts not Law as it is.
Note that all doubts of this , Law as it
ought to be would look after, and do</del. by appropriate ,
do its utmost to exclude. Law as it is both
things. By the solution of such doubts, security, says its
would be destroyed.
Go on p74. Analysis
☞ Go on to speak as per Analysis p 74 of " of
"in and abatement of nuisance. distress
"for real or damage, securing of &c"
|
Identifier: | JB/031/029/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 31. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1828-08-27 |
not numbered |
||
|
031 |
civil code |
||
|
029 |
blackstone |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
d7 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
|||
|
9715 |
|||
