Convicted without being prosecuted

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harvey Van Sickle
  • Start date Start date
H

Harvey Van Sickle

This may be more of a legal question than a language one.

I'm doing some research which touches on Richard Jones, the first Earl
of Ranelagh, who as Paymaster-General in the late 1680s managed to
obtain an estate in Chelsea by questionable means.

In 1702, Ranelagh was expelled from Parliament and forced to resign on
the grounds of misapplying public money, but no hard evidence of
misappropriation or embezzlement was put forward in the reports of the
relevant Commissioners.

The Concise DNB states that Ranelagh "was convicted of defalcation, but
escaped prosecution".

"Convicted" struck me as an odd term to use in this context: does
"being found guilty by one's colleagues", or "forced to resign because
of alleged but unprosecuted illegal actions" constitute being
"convicted"?
 
On 10 Feb 2004, Harvey Van Sickle wrote

Sorry; posted to the wrong group.

I've sent a "cancel message", and hope that will work.
 
Semantics, semantics, ....

Guess we'll soon see a "OOPS, wrong newsgroup!"

? His peers knew he was guilty but would/could not prosecute because HE also
had damaging evidence against the lot of them ?
?That'd open a few cans of worms?

It's always been and will always.
Mikey
 
This may be more of a legal question than a language one.

I'm doing some research which touches on Richard Jones, the first Earl
of Ranelagh, who as Paymaster-General in the late 1680s managed to
obtain an estate in Chelsea by questionable means.

In 1702, Ranelagh was expelled from Parliament and forced to resign on
the grounds of misapplying public money, but no hard evidence of
misappropriation or embezzlement was put forward in the reports of the
relevant Commissioners.

The Concise DNB states that Ranelagh "was convicted of defalcation, but
escaped prosecution".

"Convicted" struck me as an odd term to use in this context: does
"being found guilty by one's colleagues", or "forced to resign because
of alleged but unprosecuted illegal actions" constitute being
"convicted"?
Click to expand...

The first one "yes". The second one "no".
 
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| This may be more of a legal question than a language one.
|
| I'm doing some research which touches on Richard Jones, the
| first Earl of Ranelagh, who as Paymaster-General in the late
| 1680s managed to obtain an estate in Chelsea by questionable
| means.
|
.....
Perhaps they were all part of an early software piracy
conspiracy, and Ranelagh just happened to get caught while giving
it away for free.

"The Concise DNB states that Ranelagh 'was convicted of
defalcation, but
escaped prosecution'". Is defalcation something that people did
in days of yore with their pants down?

Richard
 
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| This may be more of a legal question than a language one.
|
| I'm doing some research which touches on Richard Jones, the
| first Earl of Ranelagh, who as Paymaster-General in the late
| 1680s managed to obtain an estate in Chelsea by questionable
| means.
|
....
Perhaps they were all part of an early software piracy
conspiracy, and Ranelagh just happened to get caught while giving
it away for free.

"The Concise DNB states that Ranelagh 'was convicted of
defalcation, but
escaped prosecution'". Is defalcation something that people did
in days of yore with their pants down?
Click to expand...

Close enough

Main Entry: de·fal·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "dE-"fal-'kA-sh&n, "dE-"fol-, di-; "de-f&l-
Function: noun
1 archaic : DEDUCTION
2 : the act or an instance of embezzling
3 : a failure to meet a promise or an expectation

Number three could be construed as constipation. :)
 
Back
Top