★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>1827 <sic>Aug.</sic> 27<lb/>Penal Civil and Procedure Code</head> <p><note><sic>Ch.</sic> or § | <head>1827 <sic>Aug.</sic> 27<lb/>Penal Civil and Procedure Code</head> <p><note><sic>Ch.</sic> or § Relation to <sic>exist<hi rend="superscript">g</hi></sic> Law</note></p> <p>Mandate best the standard of reference</p> <p>But in book on Common Law Pleading, and Book<lb/>on Chancery practice <add>the matters belonging to</add> the two branches are it would not be<lb/>fair to say confounded, but where added together without any<lb/>very determinate consideration of the Distinction in one and the same<lb/>work.</p> <p>I. First as to what regard <del>Common Pleading</del>. On this<lb/>topic I take for the subject matter of consideration the work of<lb/><sic>M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic> <del>Philip <gap/> <gap/></del> Stevens. <del><gap/></del> <add>Short is the work</add> On <del>all</del> every thing that cases<lb/>under the head I make short work. <del><gap/></del> This means<lb/>there will be some I discarded altogether.</p> <p>II. Next as to what has hitherto been plead under the<lb/>head of Evidence. That which <add>or say <del><gap/></del></add> belongs to Evidence I<lb/>discard altogether: in substance as well as in form.<lb/>But a part there is which on any view of the matter <del><gap/><lb/><gap/></del> belongs not to Evidence and thereafter <add>accordingly</add> to Procedure<lb/>but to the substantive branch of the law. It is accordingly<lb/>dealt with as above</p> <p><del>Lastly <add>as to</add> that which be <gap/></del></p> <p>An objection has been made to <add><del>all com</del></add> Codification — all<lb/>comprehensive Codification, and it assumes the character of a peremptory<lb/>one. <del>In</del> The following <gap/> in the shape of what the<lb/>Aristolian <gap/> codes are <hi rend="underline"><gap/></hi> may serve for the expression<lb/>of it. The entire field of the subject <del><gap/></del> <add>an</add> all comprehensive<lb/>view can not be effected: therefore <add>ergo</add> it ought not to be <unclear>endeavoured</unclear><lb/>at, a <add>any</add> thing that could be wished can not be<lb/>due: therefore nothing of that which is to be <gap/> ought to be<lb/>due. I deny the antecedent I deny the consequent</p> <p>As to the consequent it may be left to <gap/> itself<lb/>by its own <add>maker</add> absurdity. What is more in the character of a<lb/><foreign>argumentum ad <gap/></foreign> it is at daggers drawn with<lb/>all procedure. What <gap/> me who who <gap/> the <unclear>entire</unclear><lb/>rate any profit seeking occupation, <del><gap/> <gap/></del> is <gap/> delivered from <add>it</add><lb/><!-- continues in the margin -->it by the reflection than<lb/>he can and <gap/> to lodge<lb/>in his coffers the <gap/><lb/>of the habitable <gap/><lb/>no use so much as to<lb/>which <gap/> of the<lb/><gap/> of the age whoever<lb/>he may be.</p> | ||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}} | ||
1827 Aug. 27
Penal Civil and Procedure Code
Ch. or § Relation to existg Law
Mandate best the standard of reference
But in book on Common Law Pleading, and Book
on Chancery practice the matters belonging to the two branches are it would not be
fair to say confounded, but where added together without any
very determinate consideration of the Distinction in one and the same
work.
I. First as to what regard Common Pleading. On this
topic I take for the subject matter of consideration the work of
Mr Philip Stevens. Short is the work On all every thing that cases
under the head I make short work. This means
there will be some I discarded altogether.
II. Next as to what has hitherto been plead under the
head of Evidence. That which or say belongs to Evidence I
discard altogether: in substance as well as in form.
But a part there is which on any view of the matter
belongs not to Evidence and thereafter accordingly to Procedure
but to the substantive branch of the law. It is accordingly
dealt with as above
Lastly as to that which be
An objection has been made to all com Codification — all
comprehensive Codification, and it assumes the character of a peremptory
one. In The following in the shape of what the
Aristolian codes are may serve for the expression
of it. The entire field of the subject an all comprehensive
view can not be effected: therefore ergo it ought not to be endeavoured
at, a any thing that could be wished can not be
due: therefore nothing of that which is to be ought to be
due. I deny the antecedent I deny the consequent
As to the consequent it may be left to itself
by its own maker absurdity. What is more in the character of a
argumentum ad it is at daggers drawn with
all procedure. What me who who the entire
rate any profit seeking occupation, is delivered from it
it by the reflection than
he can and to lodge
in his coffers the
of the habitable
no use so much as to
which of the
of the age whoever
he may be.
|
Identifier: | JB/056/116/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 56. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1827-08-27 |
|||
|
056 |
Penal Code; Procedure Code |
||
|
116 |
Penal Code and Procedure Code |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
Text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
E2 |
||
|
BROCKLESBY & MORBEY 1827 |
|||
|
Edmund Henry Barker |
|||
|
1827 |
|||
|
18172 |
|||
