Talk:Jarndyce and Jarndyce/Archive 1

'and' or 'versus'

I deleted the unnecessary explanation of why we say 'and' instead of 'versus'. It is certainly not 'unconventional' to say 'and'. Indeed - with the exception of the United States - this is standard in the UK, Australia etc. Saying versus in UK legal parlance is a serious faux pas! Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, because something isn't American doesn't make in unconventional.--smcskim 00:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd keen it as Jarndyce v Jarndyce. Although in England we say "and" orally, it is always written down as "v." (but never, ever, "vs."). Legis 17:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always written "v.", Legis? What do you make of this from the law reports of 1787 "[324] JEE versus AUDLEY. At the Rolls, Sir Lloyd Kenyon, 1787." (near bottom of page) When did the "v. rule" come in? E4mmacro (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes true, but Dickens writes 'and' (from memory) which is rather unusual; if he doesn't I'd be in favour of using 'v.'. It was only the lengthy explanation which I found annoying. --smcskim 06:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Penguin Classics 1996 edition, which includes a preface written by Dickens in 1853. In both the preface and the main text, he uses Jarndyce and Jarndyce. — OtherDave 18:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with getting rid of 'unconventional', since it's standard in the UK, but while Wikipedia is international, a large portion of the readers are American, and using 'and' between the names of the parties isn't ever used. The former explanation needed work, but I think some explanation is appropriate. PaulGS 15:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be unconventional to say "and," but it is certainly unconventional to write "and." john k 16:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OSCOLA 2006 gives the citation format as a v without a period (full stop). It's a minor point in terms of this article, so I tried rewriting the intro and adding a link to OSCOLA for the extremely source-minded. —OtherDave 14:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a legal citation; it's not a real case, it's a quote from a novel, a novel in which it is referred to as Jarndyce and Jarndyce, wherever you come from. Pleidhce (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for info, in Scotland, as far as I understand from my law lecturers, "against" is the formal term, but "versus" is acceptable--81.156.63.130 (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How were legal fees paid in Chancery Court

Does anyone know if Dickens was exaggerating (or just plain wrong) to suggest that the legal fees had "absorbed" the estate and therefore the case "melts away" without being settled? Wasn't the estate held in trust by the Chancery Court or the usual trustees? Dickens seems to suggest lawyers didn't present their bills to their clients but to the Court and the Court just paid up out of the estate held in trust? Or the salaries of the clerks and judges of the court were paid out the estate? Did the Court sell property for example to do this? And if the Court paid the advocates' fees are we to suppose this applied to both sides, before the case was settled, so in effect the future winners paid the legal fees of the future losers? An extraordinary situation if true, but was it true? Should the article say this was fiction and satire, not real life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.98.218.1 (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]