★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
<head>LARCENY 2 AESTIMATION.<head>
really believe himself to have a Title, of which the Jury are still better ...... Judges than the
Judges Court <add> Presiding Magistrate, it is not fit he should suffer as for a Theft, because it gives affords no inference that
he will be guilty of one in future, & because the others</add. neighbourhood not understanding it to be a
Theft have no apprehension of him in consequence, neither is his acquittal any presumption
<add.to others of impunity.
It is plain therefore, that, not withstanding
the propounded Definitions which Law-writers
have taken upn them to
give in two lines which they in order to spend compositive
as many pages in contradicting it, no definitive</del. <add> proper explanation can
be given of Larceny till after
two cases in which the characteristic
punishment does not attach
upon the offence of Theft shall
have been made known. explained
I have said "without the consent of any one" who has — to distinguish the case in question from that of
Fraud [of all kinds viz. Forgery Coining - false pretence - cheating at play]
of anyone "Who has viz i.e.; a pretence of Title to distinguish it from that case of false pretences
where it is the servant or relation of the owner and not the owner himself + + who has a pretence of Title for
that purpose from whom the thing in question is obtained
[QU] Moveable evidence of any kind of property.
This Title has been gradually complicated to the proximity at which it now rests to the extent which the definition includes by
statutes following the letter of which <add> in the Table of which therefore if [this it definition] should be received, the Law
may be disencumber'd. +
+ Then come with Anomalous doctrine
restrictive: then with
I will suppose the reader to have case his eye over this enormous heap of regulations; or the Titles of
which form an assemblage of words much larger than the definition which is proposed to include the purport
, mak more than the purport of them all. and I will make two questions :
— In the first place what is the chance that a person about to sally forth in a public
expedition shall possess such a knowledge of the distinction in point of punishment
by them between the stealing of certain articles & certain other articles, as to be able to
tell whether under what branch of those distinctions a given article which may chance to fall in his way shall be comprized.
in the second place if the answer bem none as I think it will be admitted it must be, "none" I will then ask
of what yse or effect are any of these distinctions?
|
Identifier: | JB/070/238/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 70. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
070 |
of laws in general |
||
|
238 |
larceny aestimation |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
c2 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::j honig & zoonen [lion with vryheyt motif]]] |
||
|
cc1 |
|||
|
23353 |
|||
