★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
<head>43. BODY Natural or Politic?</head> | <head>43. BODY Natural or Politic?</head> | ||
A doubt arises (which by parenthesis <del>took not it's <gap/> but from</del> <add>would not have happened but for</add> a redundancy) whether defr<!-- end of word cut off at edge of page --><lb/> | |||
a person<add> under 2. Geo.2 c.25</add> <del>was</del> <add>is</add> defrauding a Corporation <hi rend='superscript'>+</hi> <note><hi rend='superscript'>+</hi> v <unclear>Bamidgton</unclear> - Appendix.</note> — It is thought necessary to remove <add>compose</add> it by a legislative <add>new legislative</add><lb/> | |||
provision <add>interpretative for the purpose</add> — Where does the reader suppose this provision <add>interpretation</add> is to be met with? <del>At</del> <add>In</add> the<lb/> | |||
<del><gap/></del> 78<hi rend='superscript'>th</hi> of a string of long Sections in <add>at the Tail of</add> a Revenue Act.<hi rend='superscript'>+</hi> <note>The words which <add>render, or which at least were thought to</add> render the <del>amendment</del> <add>supplement</add> necessary are <add><unclear>or</unclear></add> with intention to defraud any person whatsoever",, [ss1],, <del>Had it stopped at the word "defraud" the </note></del> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} |
RS VOLUMINOUSNESS - STYLE. 7
thought in there taken to . — Scarce a Statute but is loaded laden with one or more
instances of the
frequenting
[Not that [this violation of the Rules of Grammar] is in any case peculiar to this Statute,
for in a few printed compositions of the age, are grammatical trespasses more frequent
or more gross: not those not Orthography & Concord, which wound a cultivated the ear, but which affect those against Syntax & detail <add>vitiate —</add> the meaning <add>meaning—</add>
43. BODY Natural or Politic?
A doubt arises (which by parenthesis took not it's but from would not have happened but for a redundancy) whether defr
a person under 2. Geo.2 c.25 was is defrauding a Corporation + + v Bamidgton - Appendix. — It is thought necessary to remove compose it by a legislative new legislative
provision interpretative for the purpose — Where does the reader suppose this provision interpretation is to be met with? At In the
78th of a string of long Sections in at the Tail of a Revenue Act.+ The words which render, or which at least were thought to render the amendment supplement necessary are or with intention to defraud any person whatsoever",, [ss1],, Had it stopped at the word "defraud" the
Identifier: | JB/079/041/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 79. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
079 |
|||
041 |
composition statute singly qua statute - enacting formulary hodge-podge-ness |
||
001 |
voluminousness - style |
||
text sheet |
1 |
||
recto |
c7 |
||
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::j honig & zoonen [lion with vryheyt motif]]] |
||
cc1 |
|||
25483 |
|||