54
The second instance is like unto the first,
55
546
,
!
but not of
of exactly the
same character. Here
the alteration must have been made in the
Manuscript for this Thorf
and the Revise
are equally deficient.
the Inquiry, after using the
Mr. Dixson, on the second day of
the words "The
fire referred to (where the threatening gesture was made) was at the Police Station; not
at Taipingshan, (which
one in print) made
remarkable Statement; -
the following very
Meah chow. why
in his hand when he
1
wny had a drawn sund
madu
the gesture towards me
He was at the head of a bray of Chinamen
and he was shewing them whow to definit Mr.
batdwells furniture.!
This
Abinutes of Crident
of the 28th May 1888. p.8.
This Statement is not in prent.
I presume that it is in the manuscript of
the Minutes: fr
for
I Law. Mr. Dick write-
down something, apson muy asking the
chan
maw
Cas
R
&pectator mouly.)
whether
it was not of sufficient importance to be
recorded, and
upon receiving the
Chairman's assent to
my Suggestion.
Mr. Inglis's evidence, given
Minules of the 30 June 1858
when I
was not
1.28.
Containe w
present, co
In a
J
day
am told,
Much important matter relating to his own
personal experience, and bearing directly on
is
absurdly called "the
is to say
of
the personal
what
class of charges, that
first-
family
Connections
ana
Mr. & Mrs Caldwell with brothels: which
matter has keen to reduced in the minutis as
b
be
nearly
valualess. I derive
my information not
only
$547
547