★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
3.
CERTAINTY INDICTMENTS Constriction of
had been holden good. 20 H.6. Indictment 9 12 + + , W. H. 512. And yet says he, as if what he was going to observe was repugnant to instead of confirmatory for <add> what he had observed before Indictment ( says he ) quod A. verberavit B J.20 juctis feritic 20th felindic held good without shewing whose they were </add>
If the of specification of the person
had been from been missed, all those niceties would have been avoided.
It is curious after this to observe with what tranquillity the same Author at the distance of 3
pages reports afterwards another determination which contradicts this, but does not tho it does not overthrow <add> -turn this </add>
it is, because it is anterior in time || yet is in direct contradiction to it .
The requiring of this specification in not Forgery is not less liable to entangle the proof
|| An Indictment, quod invencit hominem mortuum, & felonice fruartus furit duas tunicas without or saying de finus & cattuttis of the Executor or Ordinary, is not good, and therefore the party was discharged. 11.R.2. Indictment 27. in niceties it gave birth to a doubt, over and above those which are here mentioned, & which <add> to the solvity of which a Legislative exposition was demed necessary to solve v.321. G. 2nd c. 22 ff 78 - or by a long section introduced after 76 equally long section which employ'd about another subject.</add> It may be the subject of doubt & litigation on whom the loss will eventually
fall in such a case: it may again be a question subject of doubt whether it were that person
supposing him ascertained or some other whom the malifactor had in his contemplation: [to defraud] for both which
questions, the one depending in good measure on the other, the duplicit tacit decision of the Jury seems to
be called for, when they are required to satisfy themselves before their verdicts that it
was with an intent to defraud such in one in particular that the forgery was committed
+at any rate an alternative charge may be allowed [i, three two different prosecutions the proceedings in which are reported handed down to us] for House burning It is a lamentable
thing to observe the Judge after full proof of the crime, could not give their find qualification <add> till after their to satisfy & of
determined themselves whom the House belonged to. They might as well have set themselves to work to find
In offences [or only ] against the person, as Murder - Assault - Battery, &c, specification of the person injur be necessary at least useful, to prepare the accused for his defence. out whether it had few or many windows, or whether the owner of it was a fair man or a .
In the first of these cases the Malefactor was actually absolved. For the burning of a House they said
was not Felony, unless it was the House of another. Who told them so ? No pair determination
to that effect was hinted at, or subsists. They could only therefore found their decision
|| Cr. Ch. 376 - 377 - Holme's case only on the suppos'd reason of things - but what reason? It may be said the occur for a
/ Hale . 568. G. C. March 10. Ch. 1 Moment it was for this whit that the </add> mischief does not subsist, since it was his own property that he was destroysing
||| it gave birth to a doubt, over and above those which are here mentioned, & which to the solving of which a Legislative exposition was deemed necessary to solve - v. 321 G.2nd c.22.ff 78 - by a long section introduced after 76 equally long Sections which employ'd about quick another subject. But that was not if was no such thing the case was not so for he has but a short Term after the
in another. If it had been absolutely his own, there would have been just the same result
for punishing him as ever, for [ It was was encompassed with others, & fined with as was others were exposed to suffer by it, & such was charged to be the # ]
charged, & for what appears proved to be fired with intent to burn them.] Judge Croke
# He was punished as for a Misdemeanour who reports this decision, it without effect
+ Tort. 115 Au. 1753 In the other +, the Interest was greater, and the House was insulated. and yet all
the Judges thought themselves authorized to depart from the former determination upon
this . . . distinction, that there was a possession & here was none. - Not but that
x And who had told them that the former decision went upon the ground of possession in Law & not of possession in fact? the Malifactor lived in & managed & had the of the House in question in both cases - but in
the first latter there was no possession in Law x Thus by the shock of opposition
determinations is the Law kept set in floating in uncertainty - Do the first one set of Judges deserve
most blame for setting up an unprincipled exception, or the last others for eluding it bg a frivolous
Where was flal made before the last determination 9.G.1.c.22. which it Trel:y without Clergy to set fire to any House - but that Indcitment appears not to have been laid at Common Law against that: since no notice is tkaen of it in the Argument
|
Identifier: | JB/050/135/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 50. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
050 |
procedure code |
||
|
135 |
certainty indictments construction of |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
c3 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::j honig & zoonen [lion with vryheyt motif]]] |
||
|
cc1 |
|||
|
16126 |
|||
