10.. nevertheless contained a point which he considered indecent. With this last admission I do not think much matters which were between the two it was.
of the Tother Johnson
7. In a letter dated the 5th of November Dr Eitel challenged the accuracy of Mr Johnson's version of what had happened at the interview, but in a subsequent letter (28th November) to Mr Johnson he withdrew his letter of the 5th and expressed his sincere regret that it should have caused Mr Johnson to consider that he had questioned the accuracy of the statement upon which the action Hayllar v. Schiff was founded, which accuracy he admitted.
18 In another letter to Mr Russell (Registrar General and acting Judge of Supreme Court) at a later date (1 Dec) Mr. Johnson enquired whether the statement on the same subject which Dr Eitel had made to Mr Russell tallied with Johnson's account of the statement made to himself.
11 Mr Hayllar of the 28th of Nov Dr Eitel wrote as follows:
"I herewith assure you. 'Though I was acting in good faith in what I said on the subject matter mentioned in the petition filed in the court, and wrongly believed myself at the time to be acting strictly within the sphere of my duty, I do now, from the new light I have now reason to take of the case, unhesitatingly admit that the substance of the allegations against yourself, as specified in the petition, is not true and I therefore beg to withdraw what statements I made and apologise to you for having made them'."
19 Mr Hayllar's solicitors, on the 30th of November, gave notice of withdrawal of the action.
20 In what light must Dr Eitel's conduct have appeared?