JB/056/253/001: 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/056/253/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto upload
 
Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<head>1828 July 21</head> <p><note>Preface?</note></p> <p><note>29<lb/>Evidence on both sides<lb/>Examples</note></p> <p>Thus far on the part of the plaintiff, the demand<lb/>now comes the evidence: the evidence adduced in support of<lb/>the demand.  <del>If</del> <add>At the time of <sic>proferring</sic> the demand</add> Suppose the plaintiff to say, this bread<lb/>I myself delivered to the plaintiff on such a day at his<lb/>house, here the plaintiff and the witness are the same person<lb/>and the difference between the demand and the evidence is<lb/>not altogether obvious.  But, at this same time suppose<lb/>the plaintiff to bring <add>bringing</add> with him a servant of his, <del>and<lb/>that he</del> saying &#x2014; it is <add>not by myself but by</add> this servant of mine that the bread<lb/>was delivered here the distinction between the demand and the<lb/>evidence is clear: it is by the plaintiff that the demand<lb/>is <del>deliverd</del> delivered; by the servant, the evidence.</p> <p>And suppose the defendant to dispute the justice of<lb/>the demand, the like distinction may without further explanation<lb/>be concurred as having place in his case</p> <p><note>30<lb/>In so far as grounded<lb/>on <hi rend="underline">exterior</hi> evidence<lb/>demand may be groundless<lb/>without <sic>falshood</sic> &#x2014; i.e.<lb/>without insincerity on the<lb/>plaintiff.</note></p> <p>Here it may be observed that unless in so far s<lb/>the demand has a point of fact no other evidence for its<lb/>ground than the plaintiff's own testimony as to <del>what</del> the evidence<lb/>that <!-- brackets in pencil -->[matter of fact] circumstances of the case that <add>according to him</add> fall<lb/><del>in to</del> under the cognizance of his own senses, the demand<lb/>may in pint of fact be groundless without any <gap/><lb/><del>fo</del> <add>in</add> his veracity or sincerity for in so far as it fell<lb/>not within the cognizance of his senses, it is not testimony<lb/>but inference: the falsity is the result not of <del>the</del> a <del><gap/>/del> <add>culpable</add><lb/>intention but an error in judgment: the servant having<lb/>assured the master that <add>by him (the servant)</add> the bread had at the time in question<lb/>been delivered at the house of the defendant, the plaintiff<lb/>believed of course <del><gap/></del> that what was then told him was true,<lb/>whereas in point of fact the servant <del>deliverd</del> <add>sold</add> the bread to another<lb/>person and put the money into his own pocket.</p>
 
 


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

Revision as of 17:03, 15 September 2025

Click Here To Edit

1828 July 21

Preface?

29
Evidence on both sides
Examples

Thus far on the part of the plaintiff, the demand
now comes the evidence: the evidence adduced in support of
the demand. If At the time of proferring the demand Suppose the plaintiff to say, this bread
I myself delivered to the plaintiff on such a day at his
house, here the plaintiff and the witness are the same person
and the difference between the demand and the evidence is
not altogether obvious. But, at this same time suppose
the plaintiff to bring bringing with him a servant of his, and
that he
saying — it is not by myself but by this servant of mine that the bread
was delivered here the distinction between the demand and the
evidence is clear: it is by the plaintiff that the demand
is deliverd delivered; by the servant, the evidence.

And suppose the defendant to dispute the justice of
the demand, the like distinction may without further explanation
be concurred as having place in his case

30
In so far as grounded
on exterior evidence
demand may be groundless
without falshood — i.e.
without insincerity on the
plaintiff.

Here it may be observed that unless in so far s
the demand has a point of fact no other evidence for its
ground than the plaintiff's own testimony as to what the evidence
that [matter of fact] circumstances of the case that according to him fall
in to under the cognizance of his own senses, the demand
may in pint of fact be groundless without any
fo in his veracity or sincerity for in so far as it fell
not within the cognizance of his senses, it is not testimony
but inference: the falsity is the result not of the a /del> culpable
intention but an error in judgment: the servant having
assured the master that by him (the servant) the bread had at the time in question
been delivered at the house of the defendant, the plaintiff
believed of course
that what was then told him was true,
whereas in point of fact the servant deliverd sold the bread to another
person and put the money into his own pocket.



Identifier: | JB/056/253/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 56.

Date_1

1828-07-21

Marginal Summary Numbering

29-30

Box

056

Main Headings

Procedure Code

Folio number

253

Info in main headings field

Jud

Image

001

Titles

Category

Text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

C8 / F9

Penner

Watermarks

B&M 1828

Marginals

Jeremy Bentham

Paper Producer

Arthur Moore; Richard Doane

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1828

Notes public

ID Number

18309

Box Contents

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