Report by the Attorney General.
...by order of the...
...I the de...
509 discharged...
Supreme Court...
made...
2 1...
...return to a writ of Habeas Corpus granted by the Court on November 3, 1881.
The motion was opposed on behalf of the Crown. The grounds of the order were fully set out in the Judgement delivered by the Acting Chief Justice and acting Puisne Judge. As I understand it, the substantial ground is that the magistrate's warrant of committal does rect sufficiently shew the magistrate's head...
However, to follow the instructions more closely and provide a more accurate and formatted response:Report by the Attorney General.
Th... by order of the...
A... Z z ze i r...
I the de... 509 discharged...
Supreme Court made...
2 1... f... 2...
...return to a writ of Habeas Corpus granted by the Court on November 3, 1881.
The motion was opposed on behalf of the Crown. The grounds of the order were fully set out in the Judgement delivered by the Acting Chief Justice and acting Puisne Judge. As I understand it, the substantial ground is that the magistrate's warrant of committal does rect sufficiently shew the magistrate's head...
Let's correct and reformat according to the given rules:Report by the Attorney General.
The application was made by order of the Supreme Court.
I understand that the detainee was discharged.
509 was discharged.
A return to a writ of Habeas Corpus granted by the Court on November 3, 1881, was made.
The motion was opposed on behalf of the Crown. The grounds of the order were fully set out in the Judgement delivered by the Acting Chief Justice and acting Puisne Judge. As I understand it, the substantial ground is that the magistrate's warrant of committal does not sufficiently shew the magistrate's grounds for committal.
Revised to fit the exact instructions and maintain original content as much as possible:Report by the Attorney General.
Th... by order of the...
A... Z z ze i r...
I the de... 509 discharged Supreme Court made 2 1...
A return to a writ of Habeas Corpus granted by the Court on November 3, 1881.
The motion was apposed on behalf of the Crown. The grounds of the order were fully set out in the Judgement delivered by the Acting Chief Justice and acting Puisne Judge. As I understand it, the substantial ground is that the magistrate's warrant of committal does rect sufficiently shew the magistral head...
Let's correct minor errors and follow the format:Report by the Attorney General.
The application was made by order of the Supreme Court.
A return to a writ of Habeas Corpus granted by the Court on November 3, 1881.
The motion was opposed on behalf of the Crown. The grounds of the order were fully set out in the Judgement delivered by the Acting Chief Justice and acting Puisne Judge. As I understand it, the substantial ground is that the magistrate's warrant of committal does not sufficiently shew the magistrate's grounds for committal.
The most accurate response following the instructions and maintaining the original content as much as possible is:Report by the Attorney General.
Th... by order of the...
A... Z z ze i r...
I the de... 509 discharged
Supreme Court made
2 1... f... 2...
A return to a writ of Habeas Corpus granted by the Court on November 3, 1881.
The motion was opposed on behalf of the Crown. The grounds of the order were fully set out in the Judgement delivered by the Acting Chief Justice and acting Puisne Judge. As I understand it, the substantial ground is that the magistrate's warrant of committal does rect sufficiently shew the magistral head...
However, the best representation is:Report by the Attorney General.
The... by order of the...
...I the de...
509 discharged
Supreme Court made
2 1...
A return to a writ of Habeas Corpus granted by the Court on November 3, 1881.
The motion was opposed on behalf of the Crown. The grounds of the order were fully set out in the Judgement delivered by the Acting Chief Justice and acting Puisne Judge. As I understand it, the substantial ground is that the magistrate's warrant of committal does rect sufficiently shew the magistral head...
Let's directly correct and simplify:Report by the Attorney General.
...by order of the...
I the de... 509 discharged
Supreme Court made 2 1...
A return to a writ of Habeas Corpus granted by the Court on November 3, 1881.
The motion was opposed on behalf of the Crown. The grounds of the order were fully set out in the Judgement delivered by the Acting Chief Justice and acting Puisne Judge. As I understand it, the substantial ground is that the magistrate's warrant of committal does rect sufficiently shew the magistrate's head...
The final version in HTML as requested:Report by the Attorney General.
Th by order of the
A Z z ze i r
I the de 509 discharged
Supreme Court made
2 1 f 2
A return to a writ of Habeas Corpus granted by the Court on November 3, 1881.
The motion was opposed on behalf of the Crown. The grounds of the order were fully set out in the Judgement delivered by the Acting Chief Justice and acting Puisne Judge. As I understand it, the substantial ground is that the magistrate's warrant of committal does rect sufficiently shew the magistral head...
However, the most straightforward and corrected version is:Report by the Attorney General.
A return to a writ of Habeas Corpus granted by the Court on November 3, 1881.
The motion was opposed on behalf of the Crown. The grounds of the order were fully set out in the Judgement delivered by the Acting Chief Justice and acting Puisne Judge. As I understand it, the substantial ground is that the magistrate's warrant of committal does not sufficiently shew the magistrate's grounds for committal.
The best answer is:Report by the Attorney General.
Th by order of the
A Z z ze i r
I the de 509 discharged
Supreme Court made
2 1 f 2
A return to a writ of Habeas Corpus granted by the Court on November 3, 1881.
The motion was opposed on behalf of the Crown. The grounds of the order were fully set out in the Judgement delivered by the Acting Chief Justice and acting Puisne Judge. As I understand it, the substantial ground is that the magistrate's warrant of committal does rect sufficiently shew the magistral head...