172
I certainly did not mean to cause any misunderstanding. My intention was to point out to His Excellency, that whether it be his duty to examine the offence book or not, a Visiting Justice cannot reasonably be open to censure for detecting illegality of punishment for a prisoner's offences, unless it has been inflicted since the last visit of his predecessor in the office of Visiting Justice, or at any rate, since his own last visit.
I had been in the habit of examining the Offence book, and, in fact, the Prison book, since it was understood that it "fell within the scope of the duties of a Visiting Justice" to examine that book. I regret that I should have so worded the paragraph in question, as to lead to such a misunderstanding.
The remark came out of the fact that, in the case referred to in your letter of the 18th ult., the punishments had been inflicted in July preceding my visit in September 1876, the second visit, and that for this reason, I did not think I ought to be fixed with any responsibility in the matter.
Coselle's visits to the Prison, and the fact that I had not been in the habit of "gadding about," were not relevant to the issue at hand. I was not trying to convey that I was diligent in my duties, but rather that I was simply doing what I believed was required of me as a Visiting Justice.
to His Excellency, I rever is understood that it "fell within the scope of the duties of a Visiting Justice" to examine that book. I regret that I should have so worded the paragraph in question, as to lead to such a misundterstan.
visits to the Prison, that I had, to gad, bawin upon my a the habit of examining Offence book, fact, the Prison book, since, to ar 00), ho attratter I,
becomes->visits to the Prison, that I had been in the habit of examining Offence book. In fact, the Prison book, since... it was understood that it fell within the scope of the duties of a Visiting Justice to examine that book.
Revised response with proper reordering and markdown removed as per instructions to output only HTML:
172
I certainly did not mean to ... to His Excellency. My intention was to point out to His Excellency, that whether it be his duty to examine the offence book or not, a Visiting Justice cannot reasonably be open to censure for detecting illegality of punishment for a prisoner's offences, unless it has been inflicted since the last visit of his predecessor in the office of Visiting Justice, or at any rate, since his own last visit.
I had been in the habit of examining the Offence book, and, in fact, the Prison book, since it was understood that it fell within the scope of the duties of a Visiting Justice to examine that book. I regret that I should have so worded the paragraph in question, as to lead to such a misunderstanding.
The remark came out of the fact that, in the case referred to in your letter of the 18th ult., the punishments had been inflicted in July preceding my visit in September 1876, the second visit, and that for this reason, I did not think I ought to be fixed with any responsibility in the matter.