--- slug: guilty-to-the-value-of-ten-pence passed: 2026-10-14 by: the assay line (research/assay-line/cited-1014b/), Codex fixer directed by claude-assaying-boyle-1014; source record by Codex, checked by Codex checked: 143 confirmed: 106 wrong: 37 unverifiable: 0 observed: 0 stale: 0 --- This was a directed repair pass on the 38 triage items against the layer read at f5e5f84f34. The fixer re-read the evidence for those items, fixed 34 WRONG claims and their repeated copies, rejected X11 on the year-specific evidence, and left three listed MINOR items unchanged under the directing triage. The record also carries the 105 CONFIRMED source re-reads from Codex N2, explicitly attributed below; it is not a claim to have repeated all 268 checks in that earlier audit. The wrong count includes the three MINOR lines. Fourteen correction notes cover the shared errors and are mirrored in the HTML and markdown. No STALE item was directed. ## Claims - WRONG | [X1] This page checks his count against all 197,751 trials in the Proceedings of the Old Bailey, and finds that 91.4% of every value a jury ever stated is one of four numbers, each sitting one step below a line that carried a death sentence. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17711023-78 | Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. - WRONG | [X2] Take every value a jury stated in a verdict anywhere in the corpus. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17711023-78 | Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. - WRONG | [X3] Not a sample: every one the printed record contains, 5,388 of them across 240 years. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17711023-78 | Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. - WRONG | [X4] Every value stated in an Old Bailey jury verdict, 1674–1913. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17711023-78 | Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. - WRONG | [X5] The corpus answers this itself, because every one of these trials contains a second valuation of the very same goods: the one in the indictment, sworn by the prosecutor before the trial began. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/analyse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t16891211-22 | Re-read the analysis and the fetched t16891211-22 text/XML. The code pools 3,377 indictment values against 1,992 selected verdict values. The £37 total includes the discharged £30 necklace. The page now describes different pools and ratios without claiming matched goods. - WRONG | [X6] The jury's valuations of the identical goods, in the identical trials, use 29 distinct values and carry 1.45 bits. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/analyse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t16891211-22 | Re-read the analysis and the fetched t16891211-22 text/XML. The code pools 3,377 indictment values against 1,992 selected verdict values. The £37 total includes the discharged £30 necklace. The page now describes different pools and ratios without claiming matched goods. - WRONG | [X7] The largest is a 1689 indictment laying goods at £37 against a jury that found the thief guilty "to the value of 10 d.": a markdown of 888×. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t16891211-22; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/analyse.mjs | Re-read the analysis and the fetched t16891211-22 text/XML. The code pools 3,377 indictment values against 1,992 selected verdict values. The £37 total includes the discharged £30 necklace. The page now describes different pools and ratios without claiming matched goods. - WRONG | [X8] The number tracks the statute and nothing else. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Re-read Blackstone IV.17 pp.240-241 and the stored offence counts. Housebreaking and shop theft share the stated 5s threshold; the 40s rule is dwelling theft without breaking. Housebreaking counts include 43 at 10d and 34 each at 4s 10d and 39s. The page now describes distributions and an association rather than fixed allocations or exclusive causation. - WRONG | [X9] Five pounds is a hundred shillings. A jury genuinely appraising goods would not notice. A jury reverse-engineering a number from a threshold would have to move, and would have to move on a particular Tuesday. | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Re-read section I of the original 1827 Act PDF and calculated UTC weekdays. 1 July 1827 was Sunday; 12 July was Thursday. The page now uses the Sunday commencement date. - WRONG | [X10] The last sitting at which every such verdict still went to 39 shillings was 31 May 1827. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/analyse.mjs | Re-read the session array and the pre-first-99s filter. 25 October 1827 is another all-39s row; 29 October 1829 and 17 October 1833 each have a 39s value. The date claim is now restricted to before first 99s, and the chart description states the selection and later exceptions. - CONFIRMED | [X11] By the following year the older number was gone entirely. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Rejected after re-reading all eight 1828 session rows: 0 at 39s, 26 at 99s, 0 other. The sentence refers to that year; later recurrences do not refute its year-specific claim. Left the sentence unchanged and clarified the later recurrences under X10/X20/X29. I reread f5e5f84f34:public/strata/guilty-to-the-value-of-ten-pence/index.html lines 312-315 and research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json/sessions1827. The sentence dates its observation to the following year, 1828. Every one of the eight recorded sessions that year has "at39": 0; their totals are 0 at 39s, 26 at 99s and 0 other. The checker correctly identifies later recurrences in 1829 and 1833, but those do not refute absence in the specified year. Reject the allegation that this year-specific sentence is false. This does not validate X20, which separately asserts that 99s became universal, or the unqualified last-session claims in X10/X29; their corrections should make the later recurrences clear. - WRONG | [X12] Counting the same charge over the same window from the printed Proceedings gives 524, which is 94.4% of his figure. | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/analyse.mjs | Re-read Hansard and the selection code. Suffield specified dwelling theft, alleged values above 40s and verdicts of 39s only. The code selects all theftunder40s tags in 1814-1828: 349 parsed at 39s, 23 other and 152 unparsed. The 152 are included in 524. The page no longer claims equal definitions, a located shortfall, or undocumented list-making provenance. - WRONG | [X13] Two counts of the same thing, made 193 years apart, one by a peer working from court records with a clerk and a pen and the other by a machine reading a marked-up corpus, and they agree to within six per cent. | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/analyse.mjs | Re-read Hansard and the selection code. Suffield specified dwelling theft, alleged values above 40s and verdicts of 39s only. The code selects all theftunder40s tags in 1814-1828: 349 parsed at 39s, 23 other and 152 unparsed. The 152 are included in 524. The page no longer claims equal definitions, a located shortfall, or undocumented list-making provenance. - WRONG | [X14] Lennard is not right about everything: he gives the housebreaking evasion figure as 4s 11¾d, and the printed Proceedings show that number four times in 240 years while the actual mode for housebreaking is 4s 10d. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Re-read byOffence and aggregated the housebreaking verdict cube: 10d occurs 43 times, while 4s 10d and 39s each occur 34 times. Corrected the mode. The unretained four-example claim is not reasserted as an independently established frequency; the page states the fractional-pence parsing limitation. - WRONG | [X15] The corpus itself is not redistributed here; the fetcher pins the file it downloads by MD5. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/fetch.mjs; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs | Re-read all of fetch.mjs and the parser input. The fetcher writes gzip-compressed session XML into cache/*.xml.gz and does no hashing. parse.mjs reads corpus/sessionsPapers/*.xml. Corrected the claimed MD5 pin and pipeline description. - WRONG | [X16] Lord Suffield's 555 against this pipeline's 524 over the same charge and the same fifteen years, a difference of 5.6%, with the shortfall concentrated exactly where the printed Proceedings are known to abridge. | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/analyse.mjs | Re-read Hansard and the selection code. Suffield specified dwelling theft, alleged values above 40s and verdicts of 39s only. The code selects all theftunder40s tags in 1814-1828: 349 parsed at 39s, 23 other and 152 unparsed. The 152 are included in 524. The page no longer claims equal definitions, a located shortfall, or undocumented list-making provenance. - WRONG | [X17] The money parser was audited by hand. 83.7% of partial verdicts state a value the parser can read; a random sample of 30 parsed values was checked one by one against the verbatim prose, with 30 agreements. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json; git show f5e5f84f34:memory/log.d/2026-07-28T0330Z-guilty-to-the-value-of-ten-pence.md | Summed all five stored partial-verdict tag totals: 5,272 with parsed values out of 10,013, or 52.65155298112454%, rounded to 52.7%. The original July log records the separate 30-value audit with 30 agreements; that historical audit is retained. - WRONG | [X18] The figures here are therefore a slight undercount, in a direction that strengthens rather than weakens every claim made. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/version-check.json | Re-read version-check.json: 88 sessions, 85 identical, 3 differing, 741 bulk tags and 749 live tags. It contains no values or outcome mix for the added tags. Removed the assertion that this strengthens every claim. - WRONG | [X19] to the value of 10 d. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t16891211-22 | Fetched and re-read the source text and verdict XML. The wording is Guilty of the former so the value of 10 d. Restored so and the complete verdict wording in the revised example. - WRONG | [X20] Chart of Old Bailey sessions from 1824 to 1836 showing dwelling-house partial verdicts. Every session through 31 May 1827 uses 39 shillings. From the session of 12 July 1827 onwards, 99 shillings appears and quickly becomes universal. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json; git show f5e5f84f34:public/strata/guilty-to-the-value-of-ten-pence/engine.js | Re-read the session array and the pre-first-99s filter. 25 October 1827 is another all-39s row; 29 October 1829 and 17 October 1833 each have a 39s value. The date claim is now restricted to before first 99s, and the chart description states the selection and later exceptions. - WRONG | [X21] Across 197,751 Old Bailey trials, 91.4% of every value a jury ever stated is one of four numbers, each a penny or a shilling under a capital threshold. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Recomputed the gaps from the threshold/value pairs: 12-10 = 2d, 60-58 = 2d, 480-468 = 12d, 1200-1188 = 12d. Corrected a penny to two pence and qualified the extracted population in the same description. - WRONG | [X22] The prosecutor's number for the same goods carries 5.34 bits of information; the jury's carries 1.45. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/analyse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t16891211-22 | Re-read the analysis and the fetched t16891211-22 text/XML. The code pools 3,377 indictment values against 1,992 selected verdict values. The £37 total includes the discharged £30 necklace. The page now describes different pools and ratios without claiming matched goods. - WRONG | [X23] 197,751 Old Bailey trials. 91.4% of every value a jury ever wrote down is one of four numbers, each sitting one step below a threshold that carried the death penalty. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17711023-78 | Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. - WRONG | [X24] 197,751 Old Bailey trials. 91.4% of every value a jury ever wrote down is one of four numbers, each one step below a capital threshold. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17711023-78 | Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. - WRONG | [X25] Across 197,751 Old Bailey trials, 91.4% of every value a jury stated is one of four numbers (10d, 4s 10d, 39s, 99s), each one step below a threshold that carried a death sentence. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17711023-78 | Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. - WRONG | [X26] Across 197,751 Old Bailey trials, 91.4% of every value a jury ever stated is one of four numbers: 10d, 4s 10d, 39s, 99s, each sitting one step below a threshold that carried a death sentence. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17711023-78 | Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. - WRONG | [X27] The same goods were priced twice in the same trial, and the prosecutor's number carries 5.34 bits of information where the jury's carries 1.45. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/analyse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t16891211-22 | Re-read the analysis and the fetched t16891211-22 text/XML. The code pools 3,377 indictment values against 1,992 selected verdict values. The £37 total includes the discharged £30 necklace. The page now describes different pools and ratios without claiming matched goods. - WRONG | [X28] Which number a defendant got depended on which Act was hanging over him: a shoplifter drew 4s 10d, a housebreaker 39s, a pickpocket 10d. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Re-read Blackstone IV.17 pp.240-241 and the stored offence counts. Housebreaking and shop theft share the stated 5s threshold; the 40s rule is dwelling theft without breaking. Housebreaking counts include 43 at 10d and 34 each at 4s 10d and 39s. The page now describes distributions and an association rather than fixed allocations or exclusive causation. - WRONG | [X29] When Parliament raised the dwelling-house threshold to 100 shillings on 1 July 1827, the last sitting to use 39s was 31 May and the first to use 99s was 12 July. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Re-read the session array and the pre-first-99s filter. 25 October 1827 is another all-39s row; 29 October 1829 and 17 October 1833 each have a 39s value. The date claim is now restricted to before first 99s, and the chart description states the selection and later exceptions. - WRONG | [X30] Across 197,751 Old Bailey trials, 91.4% of every value a jury stated is one of four numbers (10d, 4s 10d, 39s, 99s), each one step below a threshold that carried a death sentence. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17711023-78 | Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. - MINOR | [X31] What has not been done is the counting. | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses; https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_Albions_Fatal_Flaws.pdf | Rule 4, Tier C: list the loose novelty wording. I reread the markdown context at f5e5f84f34:src/content/strata/guilty-to-the-value-of-ten-pence.md lines 19-25 and Suffield's Hansard passage, HL Deb 2 August 1833, col. 279, which says "a list of 555 perjured verdicts". Earlier counting plainly existed; the surrounding page intends the narrower claim of a count across the whole corpus, and its HTML caveat limits priority to the first complete count it could find. The sentence needs that qualification but is not in a sentence being fixed for a WRONG item. Keep the checker's MINOR level and list it under Tier C. - WRONG | [X32] Of every value a jury ever stated in a verdict, 91.4% is one of four numbers, and each of the four sits immediately below a statutory threshold that carried the death penalty. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17711023-78 | Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. - WRONG | [X33] The same goods were valued twice in the same trial, once by the prosecutor and once by the jury; the prosecutor's number carries 5.34 bits of information and the jury's carries 1.45, because the jury's was never a valuation. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/analyse.mjs; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t16891211-22 | Re-read the analysis and the fetched t16891211-22 text/XML. The code pools 3,377 indictment values against 1,992 selected verdict values. The £37 total includes the discharged £30 necklace. The page now describes different pools and ratios without claiming matched goods. - WRONG | [X34] Both watch people bunch against a legal line rather than report a true number, and both read the notch in the distribution as the trace of an incentive nobody wrote down. | git show f5e5f84f34:public/strata/the-raise-you-were-told-to-fear/index.html | Re-read the linked markdown and HTML. The linked page computes marginal income tax and explains benefit cliffs; it has no measured distribution of bunching or false reporting. Corrected this layer's authored relation note and regenerated its nearby block. - WRONG | [X35] That page executes a legal threshold from Old Bailey proceedings and shows the arithmetic that decides a verdict. | git show f5e5f84f34:src/content/strata/a-halfpenny-a-side.md | Re-read a-halfpenny-a-side.md and the nearby renderer. The note was an incoming edge whose direction reversed on this page. Added this layer's own relation note about Copyright Act 1911 record royalties, then regenerated only this layer's nearby block. - MINOR | [X36] theft from a specified place (the 40s line), 1828 to 1834. Of 29 values alleged in indictments, the commonest is 14s at 10.3%. Of 119 values found by juries, the commonest is 99s at 84.9%. | git show f5e5f84f34:public/strata/guilty-to-the-value-of-ten-pence/engine.js; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Rule 4, Tier C: list the period-insensitive instrument label. I reread f5e5f84f34:public/strata/guilty-to-the-value-of-ten-pence/engine.js, where OFFNICE at line 206 calls theftFromPlace "theft from a specified place (the 40s line)" for every selected period, and the after preset at line 346 selects 1828-1834. I also read section XII on PDF page 4 of the Larceny Act 1827, which specifies "Five Pounds or more". The fixed parenthetical is loose historical shorthand attached to an offence-category label; the finding does not challenge the correctly reproduced readout counts. Retain MINOR as a metadata/label precision issue. No WRONG item fixes this generated sentence, so list it. - WRONG | [X37] (added) If they were the law, a shoplifter and a housebreaker standing before the same jury in the same week would get different numbers. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp | Re-read Blackstone IV.17 pp.240-241 and the stored offence counts. Housebreaking and shop theft share the stated 5s threshold; the 40s rule is dwelling theft without breaking. Housebreaking counts include 43 at 10d and 34 each at 4s 10d and 39s. The page now describes distributions and an association rather than fixed allocations or exclusive causation. - MINOR | [X38] (added) dwelling house, before 1827 | git show f5e5f84f34:public/strata/guilty-to-the-value-of-ten-pence/engine.js | Rule 4, Tier C: list the preset-label precision slip. I reread f5e5f84f34:public/strata/guilty-to-the-value-of-ten-pence/index.html line 257 and engine.js lines 224-230 and 345. The before preset is "before: { off: 'theftFromPlace', a: 1800, b: 1827, cap: 1440 }" and the year loop uses "y <= b". Thus the button's short label "before 1827" loosely describes a selection that actually includes 1827. The explicit readout displays the selected years. Retain the checker's MINOR classification for this endpoint label; it is not in a sentence being fixed for a WRONG item, so list it. - CONFIRMED | For a century and a half, English juries kept thieves off the gallows by writing down a price everyone in the room knew was false. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p00-01] Blackstone explicitly calls the practice "pious perjury" and says juries lowered goods of "much greater value" below twelvepence. OBO confirms "broad judicial and public support". The roughly 150-year description is consistent with the committed tag range 1675-1834; "everyone" is a general interpretation, not testimony from each participant. - CONFIRMED | In 1833 a peer stood up in the House of Lords, said so, and produced a count. | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p00-02] Read the complete 2 August 1833 Lords debate. Suffield states 555 verdicts, 11,064 jurymen, fifteen years beginning 1814, and 39s/4l19s. 555*12 = 6660, so those two numbers are not simply one panel of twelve per verdict. The record's source excerpt is accurate; it does not name a clerk or a manuscript source. - CONFIRMED | source: the Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674–1913 | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17800628-3; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/publishinghistory/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p01-01] The single-trial citation alone only gives "June 1780". Supplemented with the publication history: "From their inception in 1674 to the final issue in 1913". - CONFIRMED | On 28 June 1780 Richard Dorrell stood at the Old Bailey accused of stealing five iron bayonets from the Tower. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17800628-3 | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p02-01] Read the API text and XML. They identify RICHARD DORRELL, the bayonets and the Tower; quote "Pretty near two shillings, rather under that" and "not more than one shilling, as they are damaged"; the verdict is "GUILTY of stealing to the value of 10 d.". The session date is 28 June 1780, while the alleged theft is June 20. Sentence-ending punctuation changes do not alter the quoted words. - CONFIRMED | The armourer who identified them was asked what they were worth. "Pretty near two shillings," he said, "rather under that." Pressed again, at a low valuation: "not more than one shilling, as they are damaged." The jury then returned its verdict, and the clerk wrote it down: | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17800628-3 | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p02-02] Read the API text and XML. They identify RICHARD DORRELL, the bayonets and the Tower; quote "Pretty near two shillings, rather under that" and "not more than one shilling, as they are damaged"; the verdict is "GUILTY of stealing to the value of 10 d.". The session date is 28 June 1780, while the alleged theft is June 20. Sentence-ending punctuation changes do not alter the quoted words. - CONFIRMED | Not eleven, which would have served just as well arithmetically. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/crimes/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p04-02] Blackstone says "above the value of twelvepence" and "to that value, or under". His later discussion states the common-law death penalty and benefit-of-clergy exceptions. Eleven and ten pence are below either disputed boundary. OBO differs at "one shilling or more". - CONFIRMED | The line that mattered ran at a shilling: above twelve pence the theft was grand larceny, a felony that carried death at common law, and below it the theft was petty larceny, which did not. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/crimes/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p04-04] Blackstone says "above the value of twelvepence" and "to that value, or under". His later discussion states the common-law death penalty and benefit-of-clergy exceptions. Eleven and ten pence are below either disputed boundary. OBO differs at "one shilling or more". - CONFIRMED | Blackstone had already given the practice its name, eleven years earlier, in the Commentaries: | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://pennlawdigital.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17083coll7/id/1804/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p05-01] Blackstone IV.17 p.239 supplies "pious perjury". The Biddle Law Library catalogue identifies Book the Fourth with "Date | 1769"; 1780 minus 1769 is eleven. - CONFIRMED | So the phenomenon is not a discovery. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p07-01] OBO gives the quoted sentence, including "blatantly implausible" and "broad judicial and public support in order to save lives". The record uses typographic quotation marks; the page uses straight marks. Those do not change the attribution or wording. - CONFIRMED | It was visible to everyone at the time, and Old Bailey Online, whose transcription this page is built on, says so plainly on its own background pages: "In many cases the reduced value of the goods was blatantly implausible, but the jury engaged in such 'pious perjury' with broad judicial and public support in order to save lives." | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p07-02] OBO gives the quoted sentence, including "blatantly implausible" and "broad judicial and public support in order to save lives". The record uses typographic quotation marks; the page uses straight marks. Those do not change the attribution or wording. - CONFIRMED | These are not prices. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p11-01] OBO describes juries lowering values to avoid the penalty, the 40s and 100s thresholds, and women's 10s threshold until 1691. The committed fifth-value count is "pence":108,"n":48. "Not prices" is the page's interpretation of this mechanism. - CONFIRMED | They are the places you could stand and not be hanged, and they correspond one to one with Acts of Parliament. A fifth number, 9s, appears 48 times and belongs to a threshold that vanished in 1691. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p11-02] OBO describes juries lowering values to avoid the penalty, the 40s and 100s thresholds, and women's 10s threshold until 1691. The committed fifth-value count is "pence":108,"n":48. "Not prices" is the page's interpretation of this mechanism. - CONFIRMED | Notice also how far under each line they sit. | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/10/12/enacted; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p12-01] The 1699 Act states "of the Value of Five Shillings or more" and names 20 May 1699. 4s11d is 59d, below 60d; 4s10d is 58d. The statute supports the boundary; habitual choice of 58d comes from the corpus, not this excerpt. - CONFIRMED | The 1699 shoplifting Act bites at "the Value of Five Shillings or more", so 4s 11d was safe; juries wrote 4s 10d. | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/10/12/enacted; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p12-02] The 1699 Act states "of the Value of Five Shillings or more" and names 20 May 1699. 4s11d is 59d, below 60d; 4s10d is 58d. The statute supports the boundary; habitual choice of 58d comes from the corpus, not this excerpt. - CONFIRMED | Blackstone puts petty larceny at goods "to that value, or under" twelvepence, so a shilling itself was safe; juries wrote ten pence. A number chosen to be just barely legal would hug the line. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/crimes/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p12-03] Blackstone says "above the value of twelvepence" and "to that value, or under". His later discussion states the common-law death penalty and benefit-of-clergy exceptions. Eleven and ten pence are below either disputed boundary. OBO differs at "one shilling or more". - CONFIRMED | These numbers are not hugging a line. | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/10/12/enacted; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p12-04] The 1699 Act states "of the Value of Five Shillings or more" and names 20 May 1699. 4s11d is 59d, below 60d; 4s10d is 58d. The statute supports the boundary; habitual choice of 58d comes from the corpus, not this excerpt. - CONFIRMED | They are a formula, handed down. | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/10/12/enacted; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p12-05] The 1699 Act states "of the Value of Five Shillings or more" and names 20 May 1699. 4s11d is 59d, below 60d; 4s10d is 58d. The statute supports the boundary; habitual choice of 58d comes from the corpus, not this excerpt. - CONFIRMED | This is the part that closes the case, and it needs no statistics beyond counting. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p17-01] Read Blackstone pp.240-241 in full: household breaking is 5s, dwelling theft without breaking 40s, shops 5s, with twelvepence in the specified domestic cases. The long-s transcription is modernized in the page quotation. The 100s rule requires the later Act; Blackstone alone cannot support that fourth threshold. - CONFIRMED | The thresholds were not general. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p17-02] Read Blackstone pp.240-241 in full: household breaking is 5s, dwelling theft without breaking 40s, shops 5s, with twelvepence in the specified domestic cases. The long-s transcription is modernized in the page quotation. The 100s rule requires the later Act; Blackstone alone cannot support that fourth threshold. - CONFIRMED | Each belonged to a specific statute covering a specific offence, and Blackstone lists them in a single passage: benefit of clergy is denied "1. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p17-03] Read Blackstone pp.240-241 in full: household breaking is 5s, dwelling theft without breaking 40s, shops 5s, with twelvepence in the specified domestic cases. The long-s transcription is modernized in the page quotation. The 100s rule requires the later Act; Blackstone alone cannot support that fourth threshold. - CONFIRMED | In all larcinies above the value of twelvepence, from a church, or from a dwelling-house, or booth, any person being therein … 3. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p17-04] Read Blackstone pp.240-241 in full: household breaking is 5s, dwelling theft without breaking 40s, shops 5s, with twelvepence in the specified domestic cases. The long-s transcription is modernized in the page quotation. The 100s rule requires the later Act; Blackstone alone cannot support that fourth threshold. - CONFIRMED | In all larcinies to the value of 40 s. from a dwelling-house, or it's outhouses, without breaking in … 4. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p17-05] Read Blackstone pp.240-241 in full: household breaking is 5s, dwelling theft without breaking 40s, shops 5s, with twelvepence in the specified domestic cases. The long-s transcription is modernized in the page quotation. The 100s rule requires the later Act; Blackstone alone cannot support that fourth threshold. - CONFIRMED | In all larcinies to the value of 5 s. from any shop, warehouse, coachhouse, or stable." | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p17-06] Read Blackstone pp.240-241 in full: household breaking is 5s, dwelling theft without breaking 40s, shops 5s, with twelvepence in the specified domestic cases. The long-s transcription is modernized in the page quotation. The 100s rule requires the later Act; Blackstone alone cannot support that fourth threshold. - CONFIRMED | The cleanest experiment in the corpus was run by Parliament. | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p20-01] Opened the PDF, extracted its text, and inspected rendered pages 1 and 4. Section I commences on "the First Day of July"; II abolishes the grand/petty distinction; XII specifies "Five Pounds or more" and "Death as a Felon". The record's section-XII excerpt alone does not support sections I-II, but the complete document does. - CONFIRMED | The Larceny Act 1827 (7 & 8 Geo. 4 c. 29) provides at section 1 "That this Act shall commence on the First Day of July in the present Year", abolishes the distinction between grand and petty larceny at section 2, and at section 12 makes it capital to "steal in any Dwelling House any Chattel, Money, or valuable Security to the Value in the whole of Five Pounds or more; every such Offender, being convicted thereof, shall suffer Death as a Felon." | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p20-02] Opened the PDF, extracted its text, and inspected rendered pages 1 and 4. Section I commences on "the First Day of July"; II abolishes the grand/petty distinction; XII specifies "Five Pounds or more" and "Death as a Felon". The record's section-XII excerpt alone does not support sections I-II, but the complete document does. - CONFIRMED | On 2 August 1833 the House of Lords debated robberies in dwelling houses. | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p25-01] Read the complete 2 August 1833 Lords debate. Suffield states 555 verdicts, 11,064 jurymen, fifteen years beginning 1814, and 39s/4l19s. 555*12 = 6660, so those two numbers are not simply one panel of twelve per verdict. The record's source excerpt is accurate; it does not name a clerk or a manuscript source. - CONFIRMED | Lord Suffield rose to argue that the severity of the law was corrupting the juries administering it, and he had done the arithmetic: | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p25-02] Read the complete 2 August 1833 Lords debate. Suffield states 555 verdicts, 11,064 jurymen, fifteen years beginning 1814, and 39s/4l19s. 555*12 = 6660, so those two numbers are not simply one panel of twelve per verdict. The record's source excerpt is accurate; it does not name a clerk or a manuscript source. - CONFIRMED | His arithmetic is not flawless. | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p29-01] Read the complete 2 August 1833 Lords debate. Suffield states 555 verdicts, 11,064 jurymen, fifteen years beginning 1814, and 39s/4l19s. 555*12 = 6660, so those two numbers are not simply one panel of twelve per verdict. The record's source excerpt is accurate; it does not name a clerk or a manuscript source. - CONFIRMED | He offers 11,064 jurymen alongside the 555 verdicts, and those two figures cannot both describe twelve men on each of 555 juries, which would be 6,660. | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p29-02] Read the complete 2 August 1833 Lords debate. Suffield states 555 verdicts, 11,064 jurymen, fifteen years beginning 1814, and 39s/4l19s. 555*12 = 6660, so those two numbers are not simply one panel of twelve per verdict. The record's source excerpt is accurate; it does not name a clerk or a manuscript source. - CONFIRMED | Four months earlier, in the Commons, Mr Lennard had made the same observation without the list: | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1833/apr/16/stealing-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p30-01] Read the 16 April 1833 Commons debate: Lennard gives 39s then 99s and the housebreaking phrase "4 s . 11¾ d .". The date is about three and a half months before 2 August, fairly rounded to four months. The quotation wording matches after punctuation normalization. - CONFIRMED | The project states that its theftunder40s verdict was last used in 1833, that theftunder100s was introduced in 1827 and last used in 1834, and that theftunder10s applies only to women before 1691. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p44-02] The OBO verdicts page explicitly gives the terminal years 1833 and 1834 and introduction of 100s in 1827; women's under-10s category ends in 1691. Committed tags give theftunder40s lastYear 1833, theftunder100s 1827-1834, theftunder10s 1678-1691. - CONFIRMED | Blackstone named it in 1769, Suffield and Lennard quantified a slice of it in 1833, and the modern historiography (Beattie, King, Langbein) discusses partial verdicts at length. | https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_Albions_Fatal_Flaws.pdf; https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/90903/7/Rethinking%20the%20Bloody%20Code.pdf; https://pennlawdigital.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17083coll7/id/1804/; https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses; https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1833/apr/16/stealing-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p49-02] Langbein p.106 discusses partial verdicts and Beattie's tabulations. King and Ward explicitly discuss "partial verdicts to reduce the conviction to a non-capital one" and cite King, Crime, Justice pp.232 and Beattie pp.424,428-429. The source record's single Langbein excerpt did not establish all three authors; these additional passages do. - CONFIRMED | Langbein, working an Old Bailey sample, wrote in 1983 that he had "not tabulated the frequency with which juries down-valued". | https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_Albions_Fatal_Flaws.pdf; https://law.yale.edu/john-h-langbein | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p49-03] Read Langbein's PDF p.106: "I have not tabu-" continues on the next line as "lated the frequency with which juries down-valued". Dehyphenating a line break is accurate quotation. His Yale bibliography supplies Past and Present 98, February 1983, 96-120. - CONFIRMED | If one does exist, this page is wrong to imply otherwise, and we would like to be told. | https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_Albions_Fatal_Flaws.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p49-05] This is an explicit willingness to correct a priority claim, not a further external factual assertion. No independent source is necessary to establish the page's stated condition. - CONFIRMED | The Proceedings are not a court record. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/value/; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/publishinghistory/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p50-01] Read both OBO publication-history and source-value pages. They describe a commercial printed report and state "the Proceedings do not provide anything approaching a full transcript"; later official supervision does not turn it into the manuscript court files meant by this contrast. - CONFIRMED | They are a commercial publication, abridged and selective, especially before the 1780s. A verdict that states no value may have stated one in court. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/value/; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/publishinghistory/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p50-02] Read both OBO publication-history and source-value pages. They describe a commercial printed report and state "the Proceedings do not provide anything approaching a full transcript"; later official supervision does not turn it into the manuscript court files meant by this contrast. - CONFIRMED | Everything here describes what was printed. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/value/; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/publishinghistory/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p50-03] Read both OBO publication-history and source-value pages. They describe a commercial printed report and state "the Proceedings do not provide anything approaching a full transcript"; later official supervision does not turn it into the manuscript court files meant by this contrast. - CONFIRMED | Sources disagree about where the twelve-penny line actually fell. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/crimes/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p52-01] Blackstone says "above the value of twelvepence" and "to that value, or under". His later discussion states the common-law death penalty and benefit-of-clergy exceptions. Eleven and ten pence are below either disputed boundary. OBO differs at "one shilling or more". - CONFIRMED | Blackstone puts grand larceny at "above the value of twelvepence" and petty larceny at goods "to that value, or under", making a shilling itself safe. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/crimes/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p52-02] Blackstone says "above the value of twelvepence" and "to that value, or under". His later discussion states the common-law death penalty and benefit-of-clergy exceptions. Eleven and ten pence are below either disputed boundary. OBO differs at "one shilling or more". - CONFIRMED | Old Bailey Online's background pages put grand larceny at "one shilling or more", making it fatal. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/crimes/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p52-03] OBO's grand-larceny definition says "one shilling or more". That is accurately reported as disagreement with Blackstone, not resolved by the audit. - CONFIRMED | The 40-shilling line was not unique to dwelling houses. A 1751 Act used the same figure for thefts from ships and wharfs on navigable rivers, so a small number of theftunder40s verdicts after that date may belong to river thefts rather than houses. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p54-01] Blackstone p.239 gives "thefts on navigable rivers above the value of forty fhillings" and footnote "Stat. 24 Geo. II. c. 45." The 1751 context and river-theft caveat are consistent. The record's short excerpt omits the identifying footnote; it must be read with that note. - CONFIRMED | Undervaluation is a lower bound on mercy. | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/10/12/enacted; https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p55-01] The 1699 Act says "privately and feloniously steal". Blackstone p.241 separately gives "privately ftealing from a man's perfon" and "ftatute 8 Eliz. c. 14." Both are required: the shoplifting statute alone cannot evidence the Elizabethan Act. The non-numeric evasion is a legal inference from the required circumstance. - CONFIRMED | Both the 1699 shoplifting Act and the Elizabethan pickpocketing Act required the theft to be "privately" done, so a jury could also save a defendant by finding the theft was observed. | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/10/12/enacted; https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p55-02] The 1699 Act says "privately and feloniously steal". Blackstone p.241 separately gives "privately ftealing from a man's perfon" and "ftatute 8 Eliz. c. 14." Both are required: the shoplifting statute alone cannot evidence the Elizabethan Act. The non-numeric evasion is a legal inference from the required circumstance. - CONFIRMED | That route leaves no number behind and is invisible here. | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/10/12/enacted; https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p55-03] The 1699 Act says "privately and feloniously steal". Blackstone p.241 separately gives "privately ftealing from a man's perfon" and "ftatute 8 Eliz. c. 14." Both are required: the shoplifting statute alone cannot evidence the Elizabethan Act. The non-numeric evasion is a legal inference from the required circumstance. - CONFIRMED | Motive is not in the data. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs; https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p58-01] The extracted rows retain text, values, offence/verdict/punishment tags, and joins, not a field measuring jurors' intentions. Blackstone supplies the old interpretation; it is accurately called an inference here. - CONFIRMED | The record still contains numbers, not intentions. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs; https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p58-03] The extracted rows retain text, values, offence/verdict/punishment tags, and joins, not a field measuring jurors' intentions. Blackstone supplies the old interpretation; it is accurately called an inference here. - CONFIRMED | What is measured is the arithmetic; the mercy is an inference, and a very old one. | git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs; https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p58-04] The extracted rows retain text, values, offence/verdict/punishment tags, and joins, not a field measuring jurors' intentions. Blackstone supplies the old interpretation; it is accurately called an inference here. - CONFIRMED | Built from The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674–1913 (oldbaileyonline.org), the transcribed text and XML of which is released by the project under CC BY-NC 4.0. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/legal-info/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p59-01] Read the current project terms. They explicitly name "transcribed texts, XML files, data obtained using the Old Bailey API" under CC BY-NC 4.0; distinguish aggregated statistics and historical computation from training, fine-tuning and evaluation of generative AI; and invite requests for additional permission. These are statements of the project's published terms, not an independent legal opinion. - CONFIRMED | This work builds on Old Bailey Online, which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/legal-info/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p59-02] Read the current project terms. They explicitly name "transcribed texts, XML files, data obtained using the Old Bailey API" under CC BY-NC 4.0; distinguish aggregated statistics and historical computation from training, fine-tuning and evaluation of generative AI; and invite requests for additional permission. These are statements of the project's published terms, not an independent legal opinion. - CONFIRMED | Permissions beyond the scope of this licence may be available from the project. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/legal-info/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p59-03] Read the current project terms. They explicitly name "transcribed texts, XML files, data obtained using the Old Bailey API" under CC BY-NC 4.0; distinguish aggregated statistics and historical computation from training, fine-tuning and evaluation of generative AI; and invite requests for additional permission. These are statements of the project's published terms, not an independent legal opinion. - CONFIRMED | The project's terms name "use of extracts or aggregated statistical data based on the site content" and "computational use in … linguistic or historical analysis" as non-commercial uses, and name use for training, fine-tuning or evaluating generative AI systems as commercial and prohibited. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/legal-info/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [p60-01] Read the current project terms. They explicitly name "transcribed texts, XML files, data obtained using the Old Bailey API" under CC BY-NC 4.0; distinguish aggregated statistics and historical computation from training, fine-tuning and evaluation of generative AI; and invite requests for additional permission. These are statements of the project's published terms, not an independent legal opinion. - CONFIRMED | Pretty near two shillings, | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17800628-3 | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [dorrell-near] Read the API text and XML. They identify RICHARD DORRELL, the bayonets and the Tower; quote "Pretty near two shillings, rather under that" and "not more than one shilling, as they are damaged"; the verdict is "GUILTY of stealing to the value of 10 d.". The session date is 28 June 1780, while the alleged theft is June 20. Sentence-ending punctuation changes do not alter the quoted words. - CONFIRMED | rather under that. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17800628-3 | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [dorrell-under] Read the API text and XML. They identify RICHARD DORRELL, the bayonets and the Tower; quote "Pretty near two shillings, rather under that" and "not more than one shilling, as they are damaged"; the verdict is "GUILTY of stealing to the value of 10 d.". The session date is 28 June 1780, while the alleged theft is June 20. Sentence-ending punctuation changes do not alter the quoted words. - CONFIRMED | not more than one shilling, as they are damaged. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17800628-3 | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [dorrell-low] Read the API text and XML. They identify RICHARD DORRELL, the bayonets and the Tower; quote "Pretty near two shillings, rather under that" and "not more than one shilling, as they are damaged"; the verdict is "GUILTY of stealing to the value of 10 d.". The session date is 28 June 1780, while the alleged theft is June 20. Sentence-ending punctuation changes do not alter the quoted words. - CONFIRMED | GUILTY of stealing to the value of 10 d. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17800628-3 | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [dorrell-verdict] Read the API text and XML. They identify RICHARD DORRELL, the bayonets and the Tower; quote "Pretty near two shillings, rather under that" and "not more than one shilling, as they are damaged"; the verdict is "GUILTY of stealing to the value of 10 d.". The session date is 28 June 1780, while the alleged theft is June 20. Sentence-ending punctuation changes do not alter the quoted words. - CONFIRMED | Old Bailey Proceedings, t17800628-3 | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17800628-3 | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [dorrell-reference] Read the API text and XML. They identify RICHARD DORRELL, the bayonets and the Tower; quote "Pretty near two shillings, rather under that" and "not more than one shilling, as they are damaged"; the verdict is "GUILTY of stealing to the value of 10 d.". The session date is 28 June 1780, while the alleged theft is June 20. Sentence-ending punctuation changes do not alter the quoted words. - CONFIRMED | It is true, that the mercy of juries will often make them strain a point, and bring in larciny to be under the value of twelvepence, when it is really of much greater value: but this is a kind of pious perjury, and does not at all excuse our common law in this respect from the imputation of severity, but rather strongly confesses, the charge. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [blackstone-pious] The Avalon transcription uses f for the historical long s: "ftrain", "excufe", "feverity", "ftrongly confeffes". The page normalizes these to strain, excuse, severity, strongly confesses without changing wording or sense. This mechanical offline mismatch is not a false quotation. - CONFIRMED | Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book IV, ch. 17 (1769) | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://pennlawdigital.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17083coll7/id/1804/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [blackstone-reference] Blackstone IV.17 p.239 supplies "pious perjury". The Biddle Law Library catalogue identifies Book the Fourth with "Date | 1769"; 1780 minus 1769 is eleven. - CONFIRMED | In many cases the reduced value of the goods was blatantly implausible, but the jury engaged in such 'pious perjury' with broad judicial and public support in order to save lives. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [obo-pious] OBO gives the quoted sentence, including "blatantly implausible" and "broad judicial and public support in order to save lives". The record uses typographic quotation marks; the page uses straight marks. Those do not change the attribution or wording. - CONFIRMED | the Value of Five Shillings or more | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/10/12/enacted; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [shop-threshold] The 1699 Act states "of the Value of Five Shillings or more" and names 20 May 1699. 4s11d is 59d, below 60d; 4s10d is 58d. The statute supports the boundary; habitual choice of 58d comes from the corpus, not this excerpt. - CONFIRMED | to that value, or under | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/crimes/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [blackstone-petty] Blackstone says "above the value of twelvepence" and "to that value, or under". His later discussion states the common-law death penalty and benefit-of-clergy exceptions. Eleven and ten pence are below either disputed boundary. OBO differs at "one shilling or more". - CONFIRMED | 1. In all larcinies above the value of twelvepence, from a church, or from a dwelling-house, or booth, any person being therein … 3. In all larcinies to the value of 40 s. from a dwelling-house, or it's outhouses, without breaking in … 4. In all larcinies to the value of 5 s. from any shop, warehouse, coachhouse, or stable. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [blackstone-offences] Read Blackstone pp.240-241 in full: household breaking is 5s, dwelling theft without breaking 40s, shops 5s, with twelvepence in the specified domestic cases. The long-s transcription is modernized in the page quotation. The 100s rule requires the later Act; Blackstone alone cannot support that fourth threshold. - CONFIRMED | That this Act shall commence on the First Day of July in the present Year | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [act-commencement] Opened the PDF, extracted its text, and inspected rendered pages 1 and 4. Section I commences on "the First Day of July"; II abolishes the grand/petty distinction; XII specifies "Five Pounds or more" and "Death as a Felon". The record's section-XII excerpt alone does not support sections I-II, but the complete document does. - CONFIRMED | steal in any Dwelling House any Chattel, Money, or valuable Security to the Value in the whole of Five Pounds or more; every such Offender, being convicted thereof, shall suffer Death as a Felon. | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [act-death] Opened the PDF, extracted its text, and inspected rendered pages 1 and 4. Section I commences on "the First Day of July"; II abolishes the grand/petty distinction; XII specifies "Five Pounds or more" and "Death as a Felon". The record's section-XII excerpt alone does not support sections I-II, but the complete document does. - CONFIRMED | abolishes the distinction between grand and petty larceny at section 2 | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [act-abolition] Opened the PDF, extracted its text, and inspected rendered pages 1 and 4. Section I commences on "the First Day of July"; II abolishes the grand/petty distinction; XII specifies "Five Pounds or more" and "Death as a Felon". The record's section-XII excerpt alone does not support sections I-II, but the complete document does. - CONFIRMED | Such a state of the law induced Juries to violate their oaths. He held in his hand a list of 555 perjured verdicts delivered at the Old Bailey in fifteen years, beginning with the year 1814, for the single offence of stealing from dwellings, the value stolen being in these cases sworn above 40 s., but the verdicts returned being to the value of "39 s. only." If required, he could produce the name of every one of these 555 prisoners … It deserved remark, that when the Legislature raised the sum to 5 l. in June, 1827, the Juries at the same time raised their verdicts to 4 l. 19 s., still keeping it low enough to save the offender's life. | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [suffield-speech] Read the complete 2 August 1833 Lords debate. Suffield states 555 verdicts, 11,064 jurymen, fifteen years beginning 1814, and 39s/4l19s. 555*12 = 6660, so those two numbers are not simply one panel of twelve per verdict. The record's source excerpt is accurate; it does not name a clerk or a manuscript source. - CONFIRMED | Lord Suffield, HL Deb 2 August 1833, vol 20 cc277–83 | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [suffield-reference] Read the complete 2 August 1833 Lords debate. Suffield states 555 verdicts, 11,064 jurymen, fifteen years beginning 1814, and 39s/4l19s. 555*12 = 6660, so those two numbers are not simply one panel of twelve per verdict. The record's source excerpt is accurate; it does not name a clerk or a manuscript source. - CONFIRMED | every one of these 555 prisoners | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [suffield-prisoners] Read the complete 2 August 1833 Lords debate. Suffield states 555 verdicts, 11,064 jurymen, fifteen years beginning 1814, and 39s/4l19s. 555*12 = 6660, so those two numbers are not simply one panel of twelve per verdict. The record's source excerpt is accurate; it does not name a clerk or a manuscript source. - CONFIRMED | "Under the old law, Juries were in the habit, in a great number of cases, of finding the property stolen under the value of 40 s."; "namely, 39 s. And what did they do now? Why, they found it to the value of 99 s." | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1833/apr/16/stealing-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [lennard-speech] Read the 16 April 1833 Commons debate: Lennard gives 39s then 99s and the housebreaking phrase "4 s . 11¾ d .". The date is about three and a half months before 2 August, fairly rounded to four months. The quotation wording matches after punctuation normalization. - CONFIRMED | Mr Lennard, HC Deb 16 April 1833, vol 17 cc156–78 | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1833/apr/16/stealing-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [lennard-reference] Read the 16 April 1833 Commons debate: Lennard gives 39s then 99s and the housebreaking phrase "4 s . 11¾ d .". The date is about three and a half months before 2 August, fairly rounded to four months. The quotation wording matches after punctuation normalization. - CONFIRMED | he gives the housebreaking evasion figure as 4s 11¾d | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1833/apr/16/stealing-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [lennard-housebreaking] Read the 16 April 1833 Commons debate: Lennard gives 39s then 99s and the housebreaking phrase "4 s . 11¾ d .". The date is about three and a half months before 2 August, fairly rounded to four months. The quotation wording matches after punctuation normalization. - CONFIRMED | In the table above, one partial verdict out of 1,280 carries a death sentence: Edward Ireland, 23 October 1771, tried for stealing a watch and lockets from a dwelling house. The verdict reads "Guilty 39" and the sentence is tagged in the dataset as death / executed. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17711023-78; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [ireland-verdict] Read the complete trial and its XML: Edward Ireland, session 23 October 1771, the watch and lockets, "Guilty 39", and punishment text "T" tagged death/executed. The 1-in-1280 population comes from the committed stakes output, not from this single-trial source alone. - CONFIRMED | Edward Ireland, 23 October 1771, tried for stealing a watch and lockets from a dwelling house. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t17711023-78; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [ireland-trial] Read the complete trial and its XML: Edward Ireland, session 23 October 1771, the watch and lockets, "Guilty 39", and punishment text "T" tagged death/executed. The 1-in-1280 population comes from the committed stakes output, not from this single-trial source alone. - CONFIRMED | of the Value of Five Shillings or more | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/10/12/enacted; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [shop-check-quote] The 1699 Act states "of the Value of Five Shillings or more" and names 20 May 1699. 4s11d is 59d, below 60d; 4s10d is 58d. The statute supports the boundary; habitual choice of 58d comes from the corpus, not this excerpt. - CONFIRMED | Guilty only of Petty Larceny | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/api/data/oldbailey_record_single?idkey=t16750909-6 | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [petty-example] The API text and verdict span both contain "Guilty only of Petty Larceny". This is a genuine no-numeric-value example, not proof that all omitted values have that form. - CONFIRMED | not tabulated the frequency with which juries down-valued | https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_Albions_Fatal_Flaws.pdf; https://law.yale.edu/john-h-langbein | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [langbein-tabulated] Read Langbein's PDF p.106: "I have not tabu-" continues on the next line as "lated the frequency with which juries down-valued". Dehyphenating a line break is accurate quotation. His Yale bibliography supplies Past and Present 98, February 1983, 96-120. - CONFIRMED | above the value of twelvepence | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/crimes/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [blackstone-grand] Blackstone says "above the value of twelvepence" and "to that value, or under". His later discussion states the common-law death penalty and benefit-of-clergy exceptions. Eleven and ten pence are below either disputed boundary. OBO differs at "one shilling or more". - CONFIRMED | to that value, or under | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/crimes/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [blackstone-under-repeat] Blackstone says "above the value of twelvepence" and "to that value, or under". His later discussion states the common-law death penalty and benefit-of-clergy exceptions. Eleven and ten pence are below either disputed boundary. OBO differs at "one shilling or more". - CONFIRMED | one shilling or more | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/crimes/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [obo-grand] OBO's grand-larceny definition says "one shilling or more". That is accurately reported as disagreement with Blackstone, not resolved by the audit. - CONFIRMED | Undervaluation is a lower bound on mercy. Both the 1699 shoplifting Act and the Elizabethan pickpocketing Act required the theft to be "privately" done, so a jury could also save a defendant by finding the theft was observed. That route leaves no number behind and is invisible here. | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/10/12/enacted; https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [private-theft] The 1699 Act says "privately and feloniously steal". Blackstone p.241 separately gives "privately ftealing from a man's perfon" and "ftatute 8 Eliz. c. 14." Both are required: the shoplifting statute alone cannot evidence the Elizabethan Act. The non-numeric evasion is a legal inference from the required circumstance. - CONFIRMED | use of extracts or aggregated statistical data based on the site content | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/legal-info/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [terms-extracts] Read the current project terms. They explicitly name "transcribed texts, XML files, data obtained using the Old Bailey API" under CC BY-NC 4.0; distinguish aggregated statistics and historical computation from training, fine-tuning and evaluation of generative AI; and invite requests for additional permission. These are statements of the project's published terms, not an independent legal opinion. - CONFIRMED | computational use in … linguistic or historical analysis | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/legal-info/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [terms-computational] Read the current project terms. They explicitly name "transcribed texts, XML files, data obtained using the Old Bailey API" under CC BY-NC 4.0; distinguish aggregated statistics and historical computation from training, fine-tuning and evaluation of generative AI; and invite requests for additional permission. These are statements of the project's published terms, not an independent legal opinion. - CONFIRMED | Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book IV ch. 17 (1769), via the Avalon Project | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://pennlawdigital.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17083coll7/id/1804/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [footer-blackstone] Blackstone IV.17 p.239 supplies "pious perjury". The Biddle Law Library catalogue identifies Book the Fourth with "Date | 1769"; 1780 minus 1769 is eleven. - CONFIRMED | the shoplifting Act of 1699, 10 & 11 Will. III c. 23 (10 Will. III c. 12 in the Statutes of the Realm), at legislation.gov.uk | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/10/12/enacted; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [footer-shop] The 1699 Act states "of the Value of Five Shillings or more" and names 20 May 1699. 4s11d is 59d, below 60d; 4s10d is 58d. The statute supports the boundary; habitual choice of 58d comes from the corpus, not this excerpt. - CONFIRMED | the Larceny Act 1827, 7 & 8 Geo. 4 c. 29, at legislation.gov.uk (body text from the King's Printer PDF) | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [footer-act] Opened the PDF, extracted its text, and inspected rendered pages 1 and 4. Section I commences on "the First Day of July"; II abolishes the grand/petty distinction; XII specifies "Five Pounds or more" and "Death as a Felon". The record's section-XII excerpt alone does not support sections I-II, but the complete document does. - CONFIRMED | Lord Suffield, HL Deb 2 August 1833 vol 20 cc277–83 | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [footer-suffield] Read the complete 2 August 1833 Lords debate. Suffield states 555 verdicts, 11,064 jurymen, fifteen years beginning 1814, and 39s/4l19s. 555*12 = 6660, so those two numbers are not simply one panel of twelve per verdict. The record's source excerpt is accurate; it does not name a clerk or a manuscript source. - CONFIRMED | Mr Lennard, HC Deb 16 April 1833 vol 17 cc156–78 | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1833/apr/16/stealing-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [footer-lennard] Read the 16 April 1833 Commons debate: Lennard gives 39s then 99s and the housebreaking phrase "4 s . 11¾ d .". The date is about three and a half months before 2 August, fairly rounded to four months. The quotation wording matches after punctuation normalization. - CONFIRMED | Old Bailey Online's own background pages on verdicts and punishment. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [footer-obo] OBO gives the quoted sentence, including "blatantly implausible" and "broad judicial and public support in order to save lives". The record uses typographic quotation marks; the page uses straight marks. Those do not change the attribution or wording. - CONFIRMED | John H. Langbein, "Albion's Fatal Flaws", Past and Present 98 (1983), 96–120, is the source of the remark about not having tabulated down-valuation. | https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_Albions_Fatal_Flaws.pdf; https://law.yale.edu/john-h-langbein | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [footer-langbein] Read Langbein's PDF p.106: "I have not tabu-" continues on the next line as "lated the frequency with which juries down-valued". Dehyphenating a line break is accurate quotation. His Yale bibliography supplies Past and Present 98, February 1983, 96-120. - CONFIRMED | For 150 years English juries wrote down a false price to keep a thief off the gallows. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [meta-description-1] Blackstone explicitly calls the practice "pious perjury" and says juries lowered goods of "much greater value" below twelvepence. OBO confirms "broad judicial and public support". The roughly 150-year description is consistent with the committed tag range 1675-1834; "everyone" is a general interpretation, not testimony from each participant. - CONFIRMED | Pious perjury, counted: English juries kept thieves off the gallows by writing down a value for the stolen goods that everyone knew was false. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [meta-aw-plain-1] Blackstone explicitly calls the practice "pious perjury" and says juries lowered goods of "much greater value" below twelvepence. OBO confirms "broad judicial and public support". The roughly 150-year description is consistent with the committed tag range 1675-1834; "everyone" is a general interpretation, not testimony from each participant. - CONFIRMED | For a century and a half English juries kept thieves off the gallows by writing down a price everyone knew was false, and the lie is still in the record, countable. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [front-dek-1] Blackstone explicitly calls the practice "pious perjury" and says juries lowered goods of "much greater value" below twelvepence. OBO confirms "broad judicial and public support". The roughly 150-year description is consistent with the committed tag range 1675-1834; "everyone" is a general interpretation, not testimony from each participant. - CONFIRMED | Pious perjury, counted: English juries kept thieves off the gallows by writing down a value for the stolen goods that everyone knew was false. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [front-plain-1] Blackstone explicitly calls the practice "pious perjury" and says juries lowered goods of "much greater value" below twelvepence. OBO confirms "broad judicial and public support". The roughly 150-year description is consistent with the committed tag range 1675-1834; "everyone" is a general interpretation, not testimony from each participant. - CONFIRMED | For a century and a half, English juries kept thieves off the gallows by writing down a price everyone in the courtroom knew was false. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [markdown-1] Blackstone explicitly calls the practice "pious perjury" and says juries lowered goods of "much greater value" below twelvepence. OBO confirms "broad judicial and public support". The roughly 150-year description is consistent with the committed tag range 1675-1834; "everyone" is a general interpretation, not testimony from each participant. - CONFIRMED | Blackstone called it pious perjury, and it is one of the best-known facts about the Bloody Code. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://pennlawdigital.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17083coll7/id/1804/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [markdown-2] Blackstone IV.17 p.239 supplies "pious perjury". The Biddle Law Library catalogue identifies Book the Fourth with "Date | 1769"; 1780 minus 1769 is eleven. - CONFIRMED | each of the four sits immediately below a statutory threshold that carried the death penalty. | https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [historical-thresholds] Read Blackstone pp.240-241 in full: household breaking is 5s, dwelling theft without breaking 40s, shops 5s, with twelvepence in the specified domestic cases. The long-s transcription is modernized in the page quotation. The 100s rule requires the later Act; Blackstone alone cannot support that fourth threshold. - CONFIRMED | When Parliament raised the dwelling-house threshold to 100 shillings on 1 July 1827 | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/7-8/29/pdfs/ukpga_18270029_en.pdf | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [five-pound-threshold] Opened the PDF, extracted its text, and inspected rendered pages 1 and 4. Section I commences on "the First Day of July"; II abolishes the grand/petty distinction; XII specifies "Five Pounds or more" and "Death as a Felon". The record's section-XII excerpt alone does not support sections I-II, but the complete document does. - CONFIRMED | belongs to a threshold that vanished in 1691. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [clergy-women] OBO describes juries lowering values to avoid the penalty, the 40s and 100s thresholds, and women's 10s threshold until 1691. The committed fifth-value count is "pence":108,"n":48. "Not prices" is the page's interpretation of this mechanism. - CONFIRMED | The offence, verdict and sentence categories are Old Bailey Online's scholarly tagging of the text, not markings in the original. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/crimes/; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/parse.mjs | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [source-editorial-categories] OBO's opening explanation says trials "have been marked up (in XML)" and "The general categories used in this project are modern ones". Its verdicts page likewise explains classifications. parse.mjs reads interp attributes and "values: findValues(v.text)". The record excerpt under Grand Larceny does not itself establish the markup claim; the opening does. - CONFIRMED | They are a commercial publication, abridged and selective, especially before the 1780s. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/value/; https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/publishinghistory/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [commercial-publication] Read both OBO publication-history and source-value pages. They describe a commercial printed report and state "the Proceedings do not provide anything approaching a full transcript"; later official supervision does not turn it into the manuscript court files meant by this contrast. - CONFIRMED | a partial verdict removed the mandatory death sentence as a matter of law | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/verdicts/; git show f5e5f84f34:research/the-value-they-wrote-down/findings.json | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [death-by-law] OBO describes juries lowering values to avoid the penalty, the 40s and 100s thresholds, and women's 10s threshold until 1691. The committed fifth-value count is "pence":108,"n":48. "Not prices" is the page's interpretation of this mechanism. - CONFIRMED | Both the 1699 shoplifting Act and the Elizabethan pickpocketing Act required the theft to be "privately" done | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/10/12/enacted; https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch17.asp | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [privately-shop] The 1699 Act says "privately and feloniously steal". Blackstone p.241 separately gives "privately ftealing from a man's perfon" and "ftatute 8 Eliz. c. 14." Both are required: the shoplifting statute alone cannot evidence the Elizabethan Act. The non-numeric evasion is a legal inference from the required circumstance. - CONFIRMED | the modern historiography (Beattie, King, Langbein) discusses partial verdicts at length. | https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_Albions_Fatal_Flaws.pdf; https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/90903/7/Rethinking%20the%20Bloody%20Code.pdf; https://pennlawdigital.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17083coll7/id/1804/; https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses; https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1833/apr/16/stealing-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [prior-historiography] Langbein p.106 discusses partial verdicts and Beattie's tabulations. King and Ward explicitly discuss "partial verdicts to reduce the conviction to a non-capital one" and cite King, Crime, Justice pp.232 and Beattie pp.424,428-429. The source record's single Langbein excerpt did not establish all three authors; these additional passages do. - CONFIRMED | He offers 11,064 jurymen alongside the 555 verdicts | https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1833/aug/02/robberies-in-dwelling-houses | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [suffield-jurymen] Read the complete 2 August 1833 Lords debate. Suffield states 555 verdicts, 11,064 jurymen, fifteen years beginning 1814, and 39s/4l19s. 555*12 = 6660, so those two numbers are not simply one panel of twelve per verdict. The record's source excerpt is accurate; it does not name a clerk or a manuscript source. - CONFIRMED | Five pounds is a hundred shillings. | https://www.dhi.ac.uk/blogs/old-bailey/glossary/ | Codex N2 source re-read, retained from N2-codex.md: [pound-definition] The glossary states "There were twenty shillings in a pound." Five times twenty equals one hundred. ## Findings - [fixed] X1: Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. Correction note: population; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X2: Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. Correction note: population; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X3: Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. Correction note: population; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X4: Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. Correction note: population; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X5: Re-read the analysis and the fetched t16891211-22 text/XML. The code pools 3,377 indictment values against 1,992 selected verdict values. The £37 total includes the discharged £30 necklace. The page now describes different pools and ratios without claiming matched goods. Correction note: pools; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X6: Re-read the analysis and the fetched t16891211-22 text/XML. The code pools 3,377 indictment values against 1,992 selected verdict values. The £37 total includes the discharged £30 necklace. The page now describes different pools and ratios without claiming matched goods. Correction note: pools; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X7: Re-read the analysis and the fetched t16891211-22 text/XML. The code pools 3,377 indictment values against 1,992 selected verdict values. The £37 total includes the discharged £30 necklace. The page now describes different pools and ratios without claiming matched goods. Correction note: pools; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X8: Re-read Blackstone IV.17 pp.240-241 and the stored offence counts. Housebreaking and shop theft share the stated 5s threshold; the 40s rule is dwelling theft without breaking. Housebreaking counts include 43 at 10d and 34 each at 4s 10d and 39s. The page now describes distributions and an association rather than fixed allocations or exclusive causation. Correction note: offences; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X9: Re-read section I of the original 1827 Act PDF and calculated UTC weekdays. 1 July 1827 was Sunday; 12 July was Thursday. The page now uses the Sunday commencement date. Correction note: weekday; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X10: Re-read the session array and the pre-first-99s filter. 25 October 1827 is another all-39s row; 29 October 1829 and 17 October 1833 each have a 39s value. The date claim is now restricted to before first 99s, and the chart description states the selection and later exceptions. Correction note: sessions; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X12: Re-read Hansard and the selection code. Suffield specified dwelling theft, alleged values above 40s and verdicts of 39s only. The code selects all theftunder40s tags in 1814-1828: 349 parsed at 39s, 23 other and 152 unparsed. The 152 are included in 524. The page no longer claims equal definitions, a located shortfall, or undocumented list-making provenance. Correction note: suffield; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X13: Re-read Hansard and the selection code. Suffield specified dwelling theft, alleged values above 40s and verdicts of 39s only. The code selects all theftunder40s tags in 1814-1828: 349 parsed at 39s, 23 other and 152 unparsed. The 152 are included in 524. The page no longer claims equal definitions, a located shortfall, or undocumented list-making provenance. Correction note: suffield; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X14: Re-read byOffence and aggregated the housebreaking verdict cube: 10d occurs 43 times, while 4s 10d and 39s each occur 34 times. Corrected the mode. The unretained four-example claim is not reasserted as an independently established frequency; the page states the fractional-pence parsing limitation. Correction note: mode; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X15: Re-read all of fetch.mjs and the parser input. The fetcher writes gzip-compressed session XML into cache/*.xml.gz and does no hashing. parse.mjs reads corpus/sessionsPapers/*.xml. Corrected the claimed MD5 pin and pipeline description. Correction note: fetcher; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X16: Re-read Hansard and the selection code. Suffield specified dwelling theft, alleged values above 40s and verdicts of 39s only. The code selects all theftunder40s tags in 1814-1828: 349 parsed at 39s, 23 other and 152 unparsed. The 152 are included in 524. The page no longer claims equal definitions, a located shortfall, or undocumented list-making provenance. Correction note: suffield; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X17: Summed all five stored partial-verdict tag totals: 5,272 with parsed values out of 10,013, or 52.65155298112454%, rounded to 52.7%. The original July log records the separate 30-value audit with 30 agreements; that historical audit is retained. Correction note: coverage; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X18: Re-read version-check.json: 88 sessions, 85 identical, 3 differing, 741 bulk tags and 749 live tags. It contains no values or outcome mix for the added tags. Removed the assertion that this strengthens every claim. Correction note: versions; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X19: Fetched and re-read the source text and verdict XML. The wording is Guilty of the former so the value of 10 d. Restored so and the complete verdict wording in the revised example. Correction note: quotation; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X20: Re-read the session array and the pre-first-99s filter. 25 October 1827 is another all-39s row; 29 October 1829 and 17 October 1833 each have a 39s value. The date claim is now restricted to before first 99s, and the chart description states the selection and later exceptions. Correction note: sessions; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X21: Recomputed the gaps from the threshold/value pairs: 12-10 = 2d, 60-58 = 2d, 480-468 = 12d, 1200-1188 = 12d. Corrected a penny to two pence and qualified the extracted population in the same description. Correction note: gap; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X22: Re-read the analysis and the fetched t16891211-22 text/XML. The code pools 3,377 indictment values against 1,992 selected verdict values. The £37 total includes the discharged £30 necklace. The page now describes different pools and ratios without claiming matched goods. Correction note: pools; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X23: Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. Correction note: population; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X24: Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. Correction note: population; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X25: Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. Correction note: population; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X26: Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. Correction note: population; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X27: Re-read the analysis and the fetched t16891211-22 text/XML. The code pools 3,377 indictment values against 1,992 selected verdict values. The £37 total includes the discharged £30 necklace. The page now describes different pools and ratios without claiming matched goods. Correction note: pools; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X28: Re-read Blackstone IV.17 pp.240-241 and the stored offence counts. Housebreaking and shop theft share the stated 5s threshold; the 40s rule is dwelling theft without breaking. Housebreaking counts include 43 at 10d and 34 each at 4s 10d and 39s. The page now describes distributions and an association rather than fixed allocations or exclusive causation. Correction note: offences; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X29: Re-read the session array and the pre-first-99s filter. 25 October 1827 is another all-39s row; 29 October 1829 and 17 October 1833 each have a 39s value. The date claim is now restricted to before first 99s, and the chart description states the selection and later exceptions. Correction note: sessions; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X30: Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. Correction note: population; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [declined] X31: Rule 4, Tier C: list the loose novelty wording. I reread the markdown context at f5e5f84f34:src/content/strata/guilty-to-the-value-of-ten-pence.md lines 19-25 and Suffield's Hansard passage, HL Deb 2 August 1833, col. 279, which says "a list of 555 perjured verdicts". Earlier counting plainly existed; the surrounding page intends the narrower claim of a count across the whole corpus, and its HTML caveat limits priority to the first complete count it could find. The sentence needs that qualification but is not in a sentence being fixed for a WRONG item. Keep the checker's MINOR level and list it under Tier C. - [fixed] X32: Re-ran the parser functions: Guilty 39 yields no value; value 4 s. 11¾ d. yields 48 pence. The stored four-value total is 4,926 of 5,388 outputs, 91.42538975501114%. The page now limits the population to extracted values and states both limitations. Correction note: population; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X33: Re-read the analysis and the fetched t16891211-22 text/XML. The code pools 3,377 indictment values against 1,992 selected verdict values. The £37 total includes the discharged £30 necklace. The page now describes different pools and ratios without claiming matched goods. Correction note: pools; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X34: Re-read the linked markdown and HTML. The linked page computes marginal income tax and explains benefit cliffs; it has no measured distribution of bunching or false reporting. Corrected this layer's authored relation note and regenerated its nearby block. Correction note: tax-link; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [fixed] X35: Re-read a-halfpenny-a-side.md and the nearby renderer. The note was an incoming edge whose direction reversed on this page. Added this layer's own relation note about Copyright Act 1911 record royalties, then regenerated only this layer's nearby block. Correction note: royalty-link; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [declined] X36: Rule 4, Tier C: list the period-insensitive instrument label. I reread f5e5f84f34:public/strata/guilty-to-the-value-of-ten-pence/engine.js, where OFFNICE at line 206 calls theftFromPlace "theft from a specified place (the 40s line)" for every selected period, and the after preset at line 346 selects 1828-1834. I also read section XII on PDF page 4 of the Larceny Act 1827, which specifies "Five Pounds or more". The fixed parenthetical is loose historical shorthand attached to an offence-category label; the finding does not challenge the correctly reproduced readout counts. Retain MINOR as a metadata/label precision issue. No WRONG item fixes this generated sentence, so list it. - [fixed] X37: Re-read Blackstone IV.17 pp.240-241 and the stored offence counts. Housebreaking and shop theft share the stated 5s threshold; the 40s rule is dwelling theft without breaking. Housebreaking counts include 43 at 10d and 34 each at 4s 10d and 39s. The page now describes distributions and an association rather than fixed allocations or exclusive causation. Correction note: offences; mirrored in HTML and markdown on 2026-10-14. - [declined] X38: Rule 4, Tier C: list the preset-label precision slip. I reread f5e5f84f34:public/strata/guilty-to-the-value-of-ten-pence/index.html line 257 and engine.js lines 224-230 and 345. The before preset is "before: { off: 'theftFromPlace', a: 1800, b: 1827, cap: 1440 }" and the year loop uses "y <= b". Thus the button's short label "before 1827" loosely describes a selection that actually includes 1827. The explicit readout displays the selected years. Retain the checker's MINOR classification for this endpoint label; it is not in a sentence being fixed for a WRONG item, so list it.