VIII. Перепишите и переведите на английский язык, обращая внимание на употребление времен.

1. «Что он делает сейчас?» – «Он работает в саду сейчас. Он работает уже 3 часа».

2. Неужели ты окончил работу, ты ведь начал делать ее только полчаса тому назад.

3. С каких пор Вы знаете его?

4. Она только что вернулась домой и сейчас обедает.

5. Кто из вас смотрел телевизор вчера?

6. Неужели ты уже написал письмо? Ведь ты начал писать его только 10 минут тому назад.

7. Как часто вы получаете письма от своих друзей?

8. Я не видел его 10 лет.

9. «Что ты делаешь с утра?» – «Я перевожу статью с утра».

10. Он уже посмотрел телевизор, только что он поужинал, а сейчас он делает домашнее задание.

11. На этой странице нет никаких грамматических правил.

12. Когда он закончил работу?

Вариант V

I. Прочитайте текст, письменно переведите его. Выпишите 20 слов на юридическую тему с транскрипцией и переводом.

Origins of the Civil Jury Ontario

The civil jury was introduced in Canada in 1792. It was imported from England, where it was seen by many as a cornerstone of a democratic society.

At the time of its institution, juries were mandatory for civil trials. The introduction of the jury for civil cases in Canada was a reform aimed at dealing with discontent with the existing civil courts, which were dominated by judges and local merchants who were able to shape the law in an unfettered fashion. Unfortunately, the advent of the civil jury brought with it its own problems. At the time the sheriff enjoyed absolute discretion in composing the jurors’ roll. The sheriff’s discretion often led to “jury packing”, which involved a less than impartial selection of jurors, with a view to selecting only those jurors who were sympathetic to the local elite.

Criticism of jury packing continued for decades before the practice was finally abolished in 1850, when a reform of the jury system was passed. Interestingly, as soon as the reform was enacted, the jury itself came under attack from the legal profession. As one legal historian has noted, “[i]ts reputed age-old role as a guardian of civil rights and liberties was forgotten; suddenly it was a medieval relic, costly and inefficient, which continued to clog the machinery of justice only through the inertia of public will”. This mid-nineteenth century critique of the jury as being inefficient and costly is a theme that has been revisited periodically over the past 150 years by opponents of the civil jury who, for whatever reason, seek its abolition.

After 1856 a civil trial could be conducted before a judge alone if all parties consented. Thus, there was an exception to the presumption that civil trials would be held before a jury. In 1868, the presumption that civil trials were to be heard by a jury was reversed. Thereafter, most civil actions were to be tried by a judge alone, unless a jury was requested by one of the parties. However, trial by jury did continue to be prescribed for a small group of tort actions – defamation and malicious prosecution – unless the parties waived such a trial.