JB/072/026/001: 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/072/026/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
JFoxe (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/072/026/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/072/026/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<head>C 15 9</head>
 
<head>Offences against Reputation.</head>
 
<p><note>PROCED. 3<!-- in pencil --> Reasons why in the instrument of accusation<del>6</del>ive charges may be contained <!-- following in pencil: --> indeterminateness of the intent of names of moral qualities &#x2014; confined to one the <add>plaintiff</add> might lose his cause: though even in the opinion of the Judge the <gap/> was well founded: an imputation being cast though not <unclear>precisely</unclear> the <gap/><gap/><gap/><gap/><gap/></note> The reason of <del><gap/> the</del> allowing this latitude<lb/>
in the instrument of accusation is the <del>vagueness</del> <add>unsteadiness</add><lb/>
and uncertainty of the import of the terms in use<lb/>
to denote the several qualities that are looked<lb/>
upon as disreputable [in men]. The <del><unclear>sense</unclear></del> import<lb/>
of the terms used to express the several sorts of<lb/>
political offences is or may be made considerably<lb/>
more steady and explicit. Were the Pltf. <del><gap/></del><lb/>
confined to the choice of a single term to denote<lb/>
any such quality it is very likely his notion of<lb/>
it and that of the Judge might not coincide.<lb/>
The consequence would be that though he had sustained<lb/>
a real injury, and that such an one as<lb/>
the Deft had he not been guilty would have<lb/>
been sufficiently advertised of to have disproved it<lb/>
yet, from <del>the</del> a misapprehension of the terms <add>most</add> proper<lb/>
<del>for avoiding his</del> to employ in making his complaint<lb/>
of it, he must lose his cause.</p>


<p><note>Punishment</note> In a suit for defamation the Judge may do<lb/>
either of  things.<lb/>
1. He may dismiss the complaint, neither party<lb/>
making submission to the other, and each party sitting<lb/>
down with his own costs.<lb/>
2. He may declare the <del>fact well</del> charge contained <add><sic>conveyd</sic></add><lb/>
in the defamation well proved and in that account<lb/>
dismiss the complaint <add>charging the Pltf</add> with costs.<lb/>
<sic>2</sic>. He may declare the charge not sufficiently<lb/>
proved but that the Pltf had probable ground<lb/>
for making it</p>




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

Revision as of 14:01, 17 March 2012

Click Here To Edit

C 15 9

Offences against Reputation.

PROCED. 3 Reasons why in the instrument of accusation6ive charges may be contained indeterminateness of the intent of names of moral qualities — confined to one the plaintiff might lose his cause: though even in the opinion of the Judge the was well founded: an imputation being cast though not precisely the The reason of the allowing this latitude
in the instrument of accusation is the vagueness unsteadiness
and uncertainty of the import of the terms in use
to denote the several qualities that are looked
upon as disreputable [in men]. The sense import
of the terms used to express the several sorts of
political offences is or may be made considerably
more steady and explicit. Were the Pltf.
confined to the choice of a single term to denote
any such quality it is very likely his notion of
it and that of the Judge might not coincide.
The consequence would be that though he had sustained
a real injury, and that such an one as
the Deft had he not been guilty would have
been sufficiently advertised of to have disproved it
yet, from the a misapprehension of the terms most proper
for avoiding his to employ in making his complaint
of it, he must lose his cause.

Punishment In a suit for defamation the Judge may do
either of things.
1. He may dismiss the complaint, neither party
making submission to the other, and each party sitting
down with his own costs.
2. He may declare the fact well charge contained conveyd
in the defamation well proved and in that account
dismiss the complaint charging the Pltf with costs.
2. He may declare the charge not sufficiently
proved but that the Pltf had probable ground
for making it



Identifier: | JB/072/026/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 72.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

not numbered

Box

072

Main Headings

penal code

Folio number

026

Info in main headings field

offences against reputation

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

2

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

d15 / f9 / d16 / f10

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::[britannia with shield emblem]]]

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

23643

Box Contents

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