★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
Auto loaded |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''[{{fullurl:JB/051/202/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | '''[{{fullurl:JB/051/202/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
'' | <p><del>If the</del></p> | ||
<p>If the laws <add>of procedure were universally</add> <del>were</del> what they ought to be <del>and</del><lb/> | |||
what they might be, and what they nearly are<lb/> | |||
in so many <del>unnoticed</del> <add>unheeded</add> instances <add>they nearly are, <sic>Attornies</sic></add> lawyers however<lb/> | |||
dishonest would be unable to do mischief: and<lb/> | |||
then whether they were willing or no would be<lb/> | |||
of mighty little consequence.</p> | |||
<p>Another answer<del>s</del> is that the argument <add>on behalf</add> in favour<lb/> | |||
of the monopoly given to Attorneys at<lb/> | |||
law were it to prove any thing would prove<lb/> | |||
too much. It would prove that the same monopoly<lb/> | |||
ought to extend itself over the other<lb/> | |||
species of Attorney, the Attorney who acts in<lb/> | |||
vertue of what is called a power of Attorney,<lb/> | |||
the Attorney <hi rend='underline'><foreign>ad negotia</foreign></hi> as <sic>stiled</sic> in France<lb/> | |||
and in <del>a w</del> short to all Agents and Factors<lb/> | |||
whatsoever. <del>For giving the</del> In <del>this</del> <add>these</add> cases the<lb/> | |||
argument in favour of monopoly would have<lb/> | |||
much greater force. An Attorney at Law acts <add>scarce</add><lb/> | |||
<add>slurs a step but</add> along under the inspection of the Court: he presents <add>all</add></p> | |||
<pb/> | |||
If the
If the laws of procedure were universally were what they ought to be and
what they might be, and what they nearly are
in so many unnoticed unheeded instances they nearly are, Attornies lawyers however
dishonest would be unable to do mischief: and
then whether they were willing or no would be
of mighty little consequence.
Another answers is that the argument on behalf in favour
of the monopoly given to Attorneys at
law were it to prove any thing would prove
too much. It would prove that the same monopoly
ought to extend itself over the other
species of Attorney, the Attorney who acts in
vertue of what is called a power of Attorney,
the Attorney ad negotia as stiled in France
and in a w short to all Agents and Factors
whatsoever. For giving the In this these cases the
argument in favour of monopoly would have
much greater force. An Attorney at Law acts scarce
slurs a step but along under the inspection of the Court: he presents all
---page break---
|
Identifier: | JB/051/202/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 51. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
20-25 |
|||
|
051 |
evidence; procedure code |
||
|
202 |
|||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
4 |
||
|
recto |
f15 / f16 / f17 / f18 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::floyd & co [britannia with shield emblem]]] |
||
|
arthur young |
|||
|
16367 |
|||
