The paragraph complained of was in my Minute in 19439 and I imagine upon my Minute in 17054.
Jul 23.
The article speaks. It is inferred upon Captain Thomsen's allegation in par 23 of his letter viz that neither of the other papers have been supplied with copies of the papers, which in fact were not published till a later date, 17054 - indicative that they have not had opportunity for studying Official Documents, which were not public till July 12.
Tonnochy did not say what the papers were laid in writing before the Council off hand, was justified by the information for prosecuting.
The Board of the Council by the words at this junction does not appear to imply that he did not receive a copy. The date of laying them before Council is not stated, & the minutes of first half of 1881 are not yet printed here. It is a fact that the printed Papers as laid.
This was not in the book here. J. off. & he is unable to recollect & has sent the documents as published in the Gazette of 23 July - do not contain any information relating an alleged fracas between Capt. Thomsen or Dr Still on the occasion of the defendant's examination and cross-examination by off in April 1881.
Save a circumstance mentioned with some prominence in the Article, he is in doubt whether the Council papers & the Gazette papers are identical.
3. Put the digest?
1.
2.
Omit this last form.
7/16/2 write I think according to 1.
The form in this case they were laid in a printed form, he does not send them, which is unfortunate for the article.
Mentions circumstances which do not appear as printed in the Gazette.
Feb 14.
Feb 17.
with addition,
in to Jrafens.
J
rasm In hunting.
Page XX
was not found, however, the original text has some page-related information, here are the lines:...
Gut Feb 14
...
Jul 23
...
K feb 17
...
No change was made as there is not enough information.