must be presumed to have seen such gazette notifications.
It is late for him to protest now, & I don't suppose he would have done so, had he not been goaded &c.
So, if we consider Ackroyd's similar protest:
In two cases that are not at all similar.
position however are not
•Exactly
M. Sangster is simply in the same position as many other officers who, with over 14 percent increase in pay, would in future have their pension paid at 3/3.
were given
2 Reply
reason for that is that the Secretary of State sees no reason for reconsidering the decision that was taken in his case.
return Enc. 8 his letter su928Jan C.P.2-28
L
Yes. Mr. Chamberlain will remember that in the case of Mr. Justice Ackroyd, where he was with a distant wind, the former head of the department, the pensioner in question lost his right to the higher rate by being promoted to a still better paid office which, however, had not been raised in pay at all, and was not then within the terms of the decision given by His Excellency. As Ackroyd was not within the terms, his right to the higher rate revived, and two months later, he was admitted to be so.
The present claim has no such ground. He simply pleads ignorance of Mathieson's notification, which is a matter of common knowledge.
It is wholly untrue that he was not notified in this way. Hyperbole sent in a little place like this, where the officials have nothing else to do but "talk shop", he comes to have remained ignorant of what was