JB/079/032/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/079/032/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/079/032/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/079/032/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<!-- This page is laid out in two columns -->
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<head>2</head><lb/><head>VOLUMINOUSNESS</head><lb/> <note> Repeal by Implication Regulation after Prohibition <p></note><lb/> I will give an instance where there can hardly <lb/> be difference of opinion - nor therefore a debate. <lb/> Several <del>Stat</del> Statutes of modern date <hi rend='underline'>regulate</hi> <lb/> that operation <del>whether of </del> <add upon </add> a certain commodity <lb/> whether of fabrication imprtation exportation <lb/> sale, prchase, or consumptioon which is absolutely <lb/> <hi rend='underline'>prohibited</hi> by some ancient Law: <lb/> It is therefore but a amtter of course that <lb/> such ancient Law <del> will therefore </del> shall be <lb/> repealed. </p> <p> I will mention another point which being once <lb/><gap/> the propriety of making certain <add> and <del>car</del> every title <observations </del> </add> alterations <lb/> conformable to such settlement will <lb/> not <sic>admitt</sic> of differenceof opinion. </p> <p> It might I should think be received as an <lb/> Axiom.  That no Premium need be given to <lb/> the Informer which it can neer be worth his <lb/> while to sue for.</p> <p> If so, &amp;if it be true that no Plaintiff <lb/> can possibly carry a case through in the <pb/> 3. <lb/> Superior Courts for less that <del> <gap/> </del> a certain <lb/> Sum £15 <note> <add> £20 to £25 Mytton </add> </note> for example it may be a standing <lb/>Rule never to establish a <add> pecuniary </add> penalty to the <gap/><lb/> of which a mere stranger is to be invited <lb/> to be <sic>recover'd</sic> in Courts where that <lb/> Sum is the minimum of expenses without <lb/> allowing Costs.  It should even seem proper, <lb/> not to affix a penalty so recoverabl which <lb/> shall not be <del><gap/></del> superior to the Costs even <lb/> at their medium </p> <p> if then this Rule should be established, <add> adopted </add> the missing <lb/> of <del> every </del> <add> <del>the</del> </add> Penalty <add> up to the Sum </add> in every case where <lb/> it is to be sued for in a superior Court and <lb/> Costs are not given up to this Sum <del> in every </del> <lb/> <del> instance </del> is another instance <add> example </add> of an alteration <lb/> that <del> will<sic> admitt</sic> of the difference of opinion </del> <add> seems not to be obnoxious to debate </add> <lb/> <head>Particular Codes - <sic>In Digestione emendationi</sic> [XLII] <foreign>bus ne iminorator</foreign></head> <pb/> <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
 
 
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}

Revision as of 16:08, 22 September 2012

Click Here To Edit

2
VOLUMINOUSNESS

Repeal by Implication Regulation after Prohibition


I will give an instance where there can hardly
be difference of opinion - nor therefore a debate.
Several Stat Statutes of modern date regulate
that operation whether of a certain commodity
whether of fabrication imprtation exportation
sale, prchase, or consumptioon which is absolutely
prohibited by some ancient Law:
It is therefore but a amtter of course that
such ancient Law will therefore shall be
repealed.

I will mention another point which being once
the propriety of making certain <add> and car every title <observations alterations
conformable to such settlement will
not admitt of differenceof opinion.

It might I should think be received as an
Axiom. That no Premium need be given to
the Informer which it can neer be worth his
while to sue for.

If so, &if it be true that no Plaintiff
can possibly carry a case through in the
---page break---
3.
Superior Courts for less that a certain
Sum £15 £20 to £25 Mytton for example it may be a standing
Rule never to establish a pecuniary penalty to the
of which a mere stranger is to be invited
to be recover'd in Courts where that
Sum is the minimum of expenses without
allowing Costs. It should even seem proper,
not to affix a penalty so recoverabl which
shall not be superior to the Costs even
at their medium

if then this Rule should be established, adopted the missing
of every the Penalty up to the Sum in every case where
it is to be sued for in a superior Court and
Costs are not given up to this Sum in every
instance is another instance example of an alteration
that will admitt of the difference of opinion seems not to be obnoxious to debate
Particular Codes - In Digestione emendationi [XLII] bus ne iminorator
---page break---


Identifier: | JB/079/032/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 79.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

not numbered

Box

079

Main Headings

Folio number

032

Info in main headings field

particular codes - in digestione emendationibus ne immorator

Image

001

Titles

voluminousness - scheme of reduction

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

2

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

c2 /

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::l v g propatria [britannia motif]]]

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

caroline vernon

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

25474

Box Contents

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