Talk:Bill of Middlesex/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hinging on the King's Bench's remaining criminal jurisdiction over the county of Middlesex, the bill allowed them to take cases traditionally in the remit of other common law courts by claiming that the defendant had committed trespass in Middlesex." I'm not convinced that "hinging on" is the correct phrase here, but more significantly isn't the Court of King's Bench singular? Also, shouldn't it be "Bill", as later in the lead?
Second point fixed, not getting the first one. Is singular possessive not 's?
The singular possessive "Bench's" is fine, it's the later "them" that doesn't fit. Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ironfail again; thanks for clarifying, now fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Once the defendant was in custody, the trespass complaint would be quietly dropped and other complaints (such as debt or detinue) would be added." If the trespass charge was dropped, then the other charges weren't added, they were substituted.
Ironfail, fixed. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"As such, the Chancery attempted to issue injunctions to prevent its use, although not particularly effectively." I'm not sure whether this is saying that the attempts to issue injunctions weren't particularly effective or the injunctions weren't.
Clarified into "As such, the Chancery issued injunctions in an ineffective attempt to prevent its use". No idea what I was smoking when I wrote this prose.

"... the Common Pleas became increasingly conservative and reactionary to King's Bench changes." I'm unclear what "reactionary to King's Bench changes" means. Resistant to them? Is this to changes in the King's Bench or changes introduced by the King's Bench? Why would the King's Bench changes affect the Court of Common Pleas anyway?
Because it stripped their business, mainly. I've attempted to clarify. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... which was urged by Fairfax J ...". Who's Fairfax J?
It's linked; I've been meaning to write an article. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"From 1500 the King's Bench began reforming to increase its business". Back to the inconsistency between considering the Court singular or plural.
I'm not seeing it. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the inconsistency between referring to the King's Bench as "them" earlier and "it" now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result of the reforms, including the Bill of Middlesex, the King's Bench's business rose tenfold between 1560 and 1640." I'm not convinced that this legal trickery can be called a reform, can it?
"changes", then; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... thanks to technical ways to get out of it". "Get out of it" seems just a tad to informal.
"loopholes". Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bill itself was finally abolished by the Uniformity of Process Act 1832. Slightly losing track of what Bill we're talking about here after all the writs and injunctions that have gone before.
Clarified, thanks Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The result was the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873, which merged the Common Pleas, Exchequer, King's Bench and Court of Chancery into one body, the High Court of Justice, with the divisions between the courts to remain." Probably being dense, but I'm not getting this. If they were merged, how could the divisions between the courts remain?
Na, me being dense when I wrote it. Rearranged to "unified" rather than "merged". Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]