H.
5.
29
understand what Mr Forth means to convey by the language of his letters, but the impression left on my mind by his letter was that he thought Mr Bracefote had not tendered, as he asserted, the amount demanded.
As to Mr Forth's veracity being called in question, I can only say no such imputation was intended, the object being to point out that his impression that the writs were issued was incorrect.
Mr Forth states that his expression was that Warrants had been granted, and he never said they had been issued - it is not easy to comprehend the difference - for if a Warrant be granted, it must issue.
Letter No 55 and Warrants would have issued in this case as a matter of course, if the Summary Jurisdiction Judge had not looked at the notices before signing the documents.
I think there can be little doubt that Mr Forth in using the expression "when previously instant the Court of Summary Jurisdiction granted two hundred and four Warrants" on the 18th Oct. 1863 believed them to have been issued - It is a mere play upon words and is not worthy of further notice.
Mr Forth states that my letter No 1,240 in his opinion called for an indignant refutation of the matters laid to his charge - but his reply conveys...