JB/073/056/001: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:25, 27 October 2010

THEFT

Further consideration of it to a subsequent chapter
appropriated to that title.

To return therefore to
Theft

And first as to the taking It may be
a Question, by whom is it to be determined, in every
Case, whether this has or has not happened? and secondly again
whether by their own naked Discretion pro re nata or
with any preestablished Rules for their Assistance?
I answer to the first by no means by the judge. lest least we
should have a taking which no common Man
would deem such, as we have already a Breaking
where nothing is broken and an Entry where nobody
has got in

Thise point here to be decided involves involves no collateral
Point of Law, the Question being merely whether that
which a common Man would deem a taking has
been done?

The misfortune is that with regard to this, there
will be differences of opinion: but either their Differences
are reconcileable by Rules intelligible to those about to

Identifier: \| JB/073/056/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 73.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	073	Main Headings	law in general
Folio number	056	Info in main headings field	theft
Image	001	Titles
Category	copy/fair copy sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	f26
Penner		Watermarks	[[watermarks::propatria [britannia motif]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	23896
Box Contents

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 <head>THEFT</head>
-<p>Further consideration of it to a <del>subsequent</del>chapter<lb/>appropriated to that title.</p>
+<p>Further consideration of it to a <del>subsequent</del> chapter<lb/>
+appropriated to that title.</p>
-<p>To return therefore to<lb/>Theft</p>
+<p>To return therefore to<lb/>
+Theft</p>
-<p>And first as to the taking it may be<lb/>a question, by whom is it to be determined, in every<lb/>case, whether this has or has not happened? and <hi rend='underline'>secondly</hi><add>again</add><lb/>whether by their own naked Discretion pro re nata or<lb/>with any preestablished Rules for their assistance?<lb/>I answer<add>to the first</add> by no means by the judge.<del>least</del>least we<lb/>should have a taking which no common man<lb/>would deem such, as we have already a Breaking<lb/>where nothing is broken and an entry where nobody<lb/>has got in</p>
+<p>And first as to the taking It may be<lb/>
+a Question, by whom is it to be determined, in every<lb/>
+Case, whether this has or has not happened? and secondly <add>again</add><lb/>
+whether by their own naked Discretion <foreign>pro re nata</foreign> or<lb/>
+with any preestablished Rules for their Assistance?<lb/>
+I answer <add>to the first</add> by no means by the judge. <del>lest</del> least we<lb/>
+should have a taking which no common Man<lb/>
+would deem such, as we have already a Breaking<lb/>
+where nothing is broken and an Entry where nobody<lb/>
+has got in</p>
-<p>The point here to be decided<del>involves</del><add>involved</add>no collateral<lb/>Point of Law, the question being merely whether that<lb/>which a common man would deem a taking has<lb/>been done?</p>
+<p>Th<del>is</del>e point here to be decided <del>involves</del> <add>involves</add> no collateral<lb/>
+Point of Law, the Question being merely whether that<lb/>
+which a common Man would deem a taking has<lb/>
+been done?</p>
-<p>The misfortune is that with regard to this, there<lb/>will be differences of opinion: but either their Differences<lb/>are reconcileable by Rules intelligible to those about to</p>
+<p>The misfortune is that with regard to this, there<lb/>
+will be differences of opinion: but either their Differences<lb/>
+are <sic>reconcileable</sic> by Rules intelligible to those about <add>to</add></p>
 <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
 {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}

Views

JB/073/056/001: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:25, 27 October 2010

Navigation

Search