JB/124/030/002

Click Here To Edit

2
Reasons Panopticon Bill Valuation

what I propose accordingly is, that the Jury enquiry
of the Jury should take for its object the difference
between the time's price of that time, and that of
the present: but that the function of the Jury should it should go no farther.
be limited to this enquiry.

3
3. Intervening
improvement

2. The other allegation that might be made is supposition is
present that since the giving that verdict, money
has been laid out upon the land: which being the
case, the land is no longer the same estate. The
consequence I admitt, if the matter of fact supposition were
true: but I do not believe that it is, or that any
such allegation to that effect would be made.

4
Answer
1. The right to
claim indemnity reimbursement
denied.

If it were made, there are two answers to it.
One is that it was the folly (to use the law-expression)
of the Proprietors to lay out money upon
land of which they knew themselves to have been
forejudged in due course of law: and to which to this
moment they have never been either expressly or tacitly
restored.

5.
2. Reimbursement
offered.

But secondly, not to use this re a plea which
might be thought to savour of rigour, I make this
answer which is a short one. Let Lord Spencer
give me in any account of money so laid out
by him I will pay it at his word, in addition
to the difference between the time's price. No use therefore
of a new valuation de novo for this purpose.

Identifier: | JB/124/030/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 124.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering	1-5
Box	124	Main Headings	panopticon
Folio number	030	Info in main headings field	panopticon bill valuation
Image	002	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	2
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	d1 / d2
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	41719
Box Contents