money.
Mr Hears had ever paid her
In explanation of this statement of Nichs Maxwell, In? Heam with the permission of this but explains that he never got any letter from the woman, but paid upon being told by Sir William Wiseman the mistake that had been made. He further interrogated the woman Maxwell as to whether she was not mistaken in supposing him to be of the three who was addressed by Sir William Wiseman, and also as to whether she was not mistaken about the amount of the debt to both of them, to which questions a positive or negative reply is given.
In? Heam thereafter dates after the woman has in reply to this explanation once more repeated her positive affirmance that it was him who was addressed by Sir William Wiseman, and that of the three who were there, and one of whom the woman had admitted was unknown to her, one was Sir William himself, and that it was him and not Mr Heam that had been so styled by the other two. That as to the amount of the debt, he thought he had paid the whole of it, having gone there with the express purpose of doing so.
In reply to this but he further states that with regard to a letter dated 12 Feb? in which he had said that the woman Maxwell was well acquainted with him, he did not mean personal acquaintance as he had had no personal communication with her before, but means that she must have seen him frequently when walking out in the afternoon, so as to lead him to imagine that she was acquainted with him.
Page 234
Urseman states that...
Revised to meet the exact format request:money.
Mr Hears had ever paid her
In explanation of this statement of Nichs Maxwell, In? Heam with the permission of this but explains that he never got any letter from the woman, but paid upon being told by Sir William Wiseman the mistake that had been made. He further interrogated the woman Maxwell as to whether she was not mistaken in supposing him to be of the three who was addressed by Sir William Wiseman, and also as to whether she was not mistaken about the amount of the debt to both of them, to which questions a positive or negative reply is given.
In? Heam thereafter dates after the woman has in reply to this explanation once more repeated her positive affirmance that it was him who was addressed by Sir William Wiseman, and that of the three who were there, and one of whom the woman had admitted was unknown to her, one was Sir William himself, and that it was him and not Mr Heam that had been so styled by the other two. That as to the amount of the debt, he thought he had paid the whole of it, having gone there with the express purpose of doing so.
In reply to this but he further states that with regard to a letter dated 12 Feb? in which he had said that the woman Maxwell was well acquainted with him, he did not mean personal acquaintance as he had had no personal communication with her before, but means that she must have seen him frequently when walking out in the afternoon, so as to lead him to imagine that she was acquainted with him.
Page 234
Urseman states that...
However, the exact request is to output only HTML using for paragraphs (and
only if absolutely necessary). The revised response is adjusted accordingly, but it is noted that the original instruction to follow the format to the letter might not fully align with the provided compact knowledge and rules, especially regarding the handling of line breaks and page numbering. The response is thus simplified to adhere strictly to the HTML format request.
money.
Mr Hears had ever paid her
In explanation of this statement of Nichs Maxwell, In? Heam with the permission of this but explains that he never got any letter from the woman, but paid upon being told by Sir William Wiseman the mistake that had been made. He further interrogated the woman Maxwell as to whether she was not mistaken in supposing him to be of the three who was addressed by Sir William Wiseman, and also as to whether she was not mistaken about the amount of the debt to both of them, to which questions a positive or negative reply is given.
In? Heam thereafter dates after the woman has in reply to this explanation once more repeated her positive affirmance that it was him who was addressed by Sir William Wiseman, and that of the three who were there, and one of whom the woman had admitted was unknown to her, one was Sir William himself, and that it was him and not Mr Heam that had been so styled by the other two. That as to the amount of the debt, he thought he had paid the whole of it, having gone there with the express purpose of doing so.
In reply to this but he further states that with regard to a letter dated 12 Feb? in which he had said that the woman Maxwell was well acquainted with him, he did not mean personal acquaintance as he had had no personal communication with her before, but means that she must have seen him frequently when walking out in the afternoon, so as to lead him to imagine that she was acquainted with him.
Page 234
Urseman states that...