★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
m Protected "JB/056/167/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>1827. <sic>Oct<hi rend="superscript">r.</hi></sic> 18 +<lb/>Law Amendments</head> <p><note>2<hi rend="superscript">o</hi><lb/><add>§ 5. Procedure<lb/>Proposed <unclear>Execution</unclear></add | <head>1827. <sic>Oct<hi rend="superscript">r.</hi></sic> 18 +<lb/>Law Amendments</head> <p><note>2<hi rend="superscript">o</hi><lb/><add>§ 5. Procedure<lb/>Proposed <unclear>Execution</unclear></add></note></p> <p><note>Proposed system compared<lb/>with the existing in respect<lb/>of dispatch</note></p> <p>Compare now with the proposed <del>plan</del> <add>system</add> the existing one in respect<lb/>of dispatch, in other words in respect of the quantum of the three so intimately<lb/>connected yet still distinguishable evils, delay vexation and <sic>expence</sic></p> <p><note>First as to delay In the<lb/>proposed system no factitious<lb/>delay. Judge who receives<lb/>the first application terminates<lb/>the suit as soon<lb/>as the necessary evidence<lb/>can be elicited</note></p> <p>1. First as to delay. On <add>Under</add> the proposed system, of factitious delay not a particle.<lb/>By the same Judge by whom the <del><gap/></del> application the cogent and<lb/><unclear>initiatory</unclear> application has been received <add>made</add>, if no evidence from other judicial<lb/>territories is required <add>appears to be <unclear>requisite</unclear></add> the suit is terminated the suit receives its termination,<lb/>every piece of evidence from whatsoever source it appears capable<lb/>of being furnished, being elicited as soon as the condition <add>of</add> the person from<lb/>whom it is to come <sic>admitts</sic></p> <p>Behold <add>See</add> now how the matter stands in the case of penal<lb/>and criminal suits in the most approved and long-established court</p> <p><note>In existing system<lb/>delays 1 In the most<lb/>highly penal cases delays<lb/>in the course of proceedings<lb/>first before the Justice of<lb/>the peace afterwards at<lb/>the assizes</note></p> <p>1. In <add>Among</add> penal and criminal cases prosecuted by indictment<lb/>in the most highly penal cases the proceedings commence<lb/>before a <add>single</add> Justice of the peace or Justices in any number more than one<lb/>not acting as Quarter Sessions. If there then appears <del><gap/></del> <add>sufficient</add> ground<lb/>for supposing that, in the trial, at the Assizes before a Judge and<lb/>a Jury evidence sufficient to warrant conviction will be produced<lb/>the defendant is consigned to a Jail in which guilty or not guilty<lb/>he may <add>it may</add> continues any number of days from one to six months<lb/>and when the county has the misfortune to be at a certain distance<lb/><add>north</add> from the <del>source of</del> chief sort of judicatories <gap/> <gap/> For this<lb/>delay, <add>delay — the whole of it the work of government</add> <del>not so much as the <gap/></del> it is not in the power of words<lb/>to assign a justification, nor except what is afforded by blind defence<lb/>to useage, an extenuation or excuse. A sort of self satisfaction<lb/>and on the part of those <del>on whom the</del> <add>by whom this</add> state of things is intended a<lb/>sort of self exculpation is afforded by the consideration that on the part<lb/>of those who then suffer the greatest number were really guilty of the<lb/>offence so charged upon them. But if so, why is it? Only because<lb/>the evidence elicited <del>which</del> <add>by</add> the Justice of Peace and which served<lb/>as a ground for committing the Prisoners guilty or not guilty was in<lb/>its nature sufficient to warrant the treating him as guilty, on which<lb/>supposition the whole of the subsequent proceedings <del>so</del> constitute a source of<lb/><del><gap/></del> worse than useless delay vexation and <sic>expence</sic></p> | ||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}} |
1827. Octr. 18 +
Law Amendments
2o
§ 5. Procedure
Proposed Execution
Proposed system compared
with the existing in respect
of dispatch
Compare now with the proposed plan system the existing one in respect
of dispatch, in other words in respect of the quantum of the three so intimately
connected yet still distinguishable evils, delay vexation and expence
First as to delay In the
proposed system no factitious
delay. Judge who receives
the first application terminates
the suit as soon
as the necessary evidence
can be elicited
1. First as to delay. On Under the proposed system, of factitious delay not a particle.
By the same Judge by whom the application the cogent and
initiatory application has been received made, if no evidence from other judicial
territories is required appears to be requisite the suit is terminated the suit receives its termination,
every piece of evidence from whatsoever source it appears capable
of being furnished, being elicited as soon as the condition of the person from
whom it is to come admitts
Behold See now how the matter stands in the case of penal
and criminal suits in the most approved and long-established court
In existing system
delays 1 In the most
highly penal cases delays
in the course of proceedings
first before the Justice of
the peace afterwards at
the assizes
1. In Among penal and criminal cases prosecuted by indictment
in the most highly penal cases the proceedings commence
before a single Justice of the peace or Justices in any number more than one
not acting as Quarter Sessions. If there then appears sufficient ground
for supposing that, in the trial, at the Assizes before a Judge and
a Jury evidence sufficient to warrant conviction will be produced
the defendant is consigned to a Jail in which guilty or not guilty
he may it may continues any number of days from one to six months
and when the county has the misfortune to be at a certain distance
north from the source of chief sort of judicatories For this
delay, delay — the whole of it the work of government not so much as the it is not in the power of words
to assign a justification, nor except what is afforded by blind defence
to useage, an extenuation or excuse. A sort of self satisfaction
and on the part of those on whom the by whom this state of things is intended a
sort of self exculpation is afforded by the consideration that on the part
of those who then suffer the greatest number were really guilty of the
offence so charged upon them. But if so, why is it? Only because
the evidence elicited which by the Justice of Peace and which served
as a ground for committing the Prisoners guilty or not guilty was in
its nature sufficient to warrant the treating him as guilty, on which
supposition the whole of the subsequent proceedings so constitute a source of
worse than useless delay vexation and expence
Identifier: | JB/056/167/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 56. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
1827-10-17 |
Not numbered |
||
056 |
Law Amendment |
||
167 |
Law Amendments |
||
001 |
|||
Text sheet |
1 |
||
recto |
C1 |
||
BROCKLESBY & MORBEY 1827 |
|||
Edmund Henry Barker |
|||
1827 |
|||
18223 |
|||