377
I dissatisfacting explanations in his defence.
This letter is to desire in writing that I put myself and those with whom I have had conversation on this matter right.
How did the Court acquit Mr Catonell of this charge, when the Jury gave a verdict for the defendant, why has the Stater, in his so-called libellous article, stated that Mr Catonell on Friday evening was in partnership with a notorious pirate, that other Colonial servants had burnt certain papers to screen Mr Catonell?
In the correspondence, the information, plea, & abstract which I have been supplied with are fabrications. I should feel obliged if you would explain.
You also say "For the move in which and conducted the trial in this matter, Mr Ansley had originated".
How could Mr Anstey originate the case when the action was taken by Sir John Bowring against the Editor: and was it not Mr Anstey who was guilty of a breach of official confidence when the only counsel examined the witnesses for the prosecution?
I have the honor to be, Your obedient Servant, W. Jumer.
[To] The Right Hon. Sir E. B. Lytton M.P., Her Majesty's principal Secretary for the Colonies.