JB/034/194/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/034/194/001: 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>1823. Oct<hi rend="superscript">r<hi rend="underline">..</hi></hi> 19</p>
 
<head>Constitutional Code.</head> <add>or Procedure</add> <del>1. Enactive Part</del><add>Ratiocinate</add><lb/>
 
<note>Ch. Quasi-Jury<lb/>
1. App<gap/> function<lb/>
&sect;.</note><lb/>
 
<p>III. Rationale. Quasi-jury part.</p>
<p>Question Why are the cases of Judicial-rapacity officers admitt<lb/>
of Appeal?</p>
<p>Question Why not admitt of Appeal without a warrant<lb/>
from a Quasi Jury?</p>
 
<p>To <del>these two</del> questions this <gap/> connected, in <del><gap/></del> <lb/>
separate answer can <gap/> to give.</p>
<p>Reasons</p>
<p>1. Appeal is eventually allowed, best if to a single Judge without<lb/>
any presumptively <unclear>contracting</unclear> Jury the piece of aflicting punishment to such a extent <gap/> price, the security against <unclear>endeavour</unclear><lb/>
and <del><gap/></del> oppression should <gap/> be regarded as not<add>insufficient</add> sufficiently<lb/>
strong.</p>
 
 
 
 






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

Revision as of 17:33, 19 March 2024

Click Here To Edit

1823. Octr<hi rend="underline">..</hi> 19

Constitutional Code. or Procedure 1. Enactive PartRatiocinate

Ch. Quasi-Jury
1. App function
§.

III. Rationale. Quasi-jury part.

Question Why are the cases of Judicial-rapacity officers admitt
of Appeal?

Question Why not admitt of Appeal without a warrant
from a Quasi Jury?

To these two questions this connected, in
separate answer can to give.

Reasons

1. Appeal is eventually allowed, best if to a single Judge without
any presumptively contracting Jury the piece of aflicting punishment to such a extent price, the security against endeavour
and oppression should be regarded as notinsufficient sufficiently
strong.






Identifier: | JB/034/194/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 34.

Date_1

1823-10-19

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

034

Main Headings

constitutional code

Folio number

194

Info in main headings field

constitutional code procedures ratiocinative part

Image

001

Titles

rationale - quasi jury part

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

c1 / e1

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

10468

Box Contents

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