The correspondence closes with a letter from Mr Howard in 1997 in which he encloses a copy of a letter from Mr Danby, the architect so frequently mentioned in the papers. Though this letter has apparently a fraudulent intent I am unable to appreciate: bearing on the merits of the case which is before Government for decision, it obviously impossible to review a judgment of the Supreme Court.
As Mr Howard has intimated his intention of sending the correspondence now under review to Mr. Stephens, that he may renew his application to you, I have thought it proper to forward it with my observations.
I very much regret that you should be troubled again with this matter; but it is evident that no settlement would have satisfied Mr. Stephens, that of the payment...
Page 568