JB/041/122/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/041/122/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto upload
 
Keithompson (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'[{{fullurl:JB/041/122/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'[{{fullurl:JB/041/122/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<head>1824. March 19</head><lb/>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<head>Constitutional Code.</head> <note>Ch. XV. Quasi-Jury</note><lb/>
 
<note>S.3 Functions.</note>
Art. 13. VII. Appeal-licensing function. The<lb/>
<del><gap/></del> sort of occasion by which thus their function is called<lb/>
into exercise is as follows. <del>In the case between</del> <unclear>Consistent</unclear><lb/>
<del><gap/> are</del><add>cases there appear to be,</add> in which <add><del>of a consequence of</del></add> <del>should Appeal be put without</del> <unclear>retrut<del>ion</del></unclear><lb/>
<del>and the power of the defendent used</del> <add>of</add> the exemption of<lb/>
the sanction were delayed of course, until the decrees of the<lb/>
Appellant Judicatory have been pronounced, and <add><del>its <gap/> sanction</del></add> <del><gap/> <gap/></del><add><del><gap/></del></add><lb/>
of the <del>Law</del><add><gap/> given to the execution of the imperative decree</add> Immediate Judicatory. <del><gap/> method for execution</del> <lb/> the certain evil of delay, vexation and asp<gap/>, to<lb/>
<gap/> improved, and M<gap/> action in the judicial theatre, might<lb/>
in the eyes of the Legislation outweigh the possible evil of effective<lb/>
<unclear>undecision</unclear> for want of such Appeal, if <del>such Appeal</del><lb/>
with consequent <del>delay</del> stay of execution, <add>the Appeal</add> were placed <del>ap</del><lb/>
absolutely within the power of the Defendant.




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

Revision as of 21:07, 21 July 2013

'Click Here To Edit 1824. March 19
Constitutional Code. Ch. XV. Quasi-Jury
S.3 Functions. Art. 13. VII. Appeal-licensing function. The
sort of occasion by which thus their function is called
into exercise is as follows. In the case between Consistent
arecases there appear to be, in which of a consequence of should Appeal be put without retrution
and the power of the defendent used of the exemption of
the sanction were delayed of course, until the decrees of the
Appellant Judicatory have been pronounced, and its sanction
of the Law given to the execution of the imperative decree Immediate Judicatory. method for execution
the certain evil of delay, vexation and asp, to
improved, and M action in the judicial theatre, might
in the eyes of the Legislation outweigh the possible evil of effective
undecision for want of such Appeal, if such Appeal
with consequent delay stay of execution, the Appeal were placed ap
absolutely within the power of the Defendant.



Identifier: | JB/041/122/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 41.

Date_1

1824-03-19

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

041

Main Headings

Constitutional Code

Folio number

122

Info in main headings field

Constitutional Code

Image

001

Titles

Category

Text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

Recto"Recto" is not in the list (recto, verso) of allowed values for the "Rectoverso" property.

Page Numbering

D9 / E4

Penner

Watermarks

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

001

Box Contents

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