I do not see how we can deny that the case against Holt is substantially the same as that of Stanton & the others. Sir E. Wingfield described the enquiry as a travesty of justice (see GR1178/1922/32(III) & M9720/48).
It appears that evidence against Holt was submitted to us - case against him had the witness in Holt's case, but was differentiated from that of Stanton & the others by the circumstance that there "was one witness who said that he had actually received bribes from Holt." So his case is similar to Scott's first conviction in 1899 (20089/99). Of course, the value of this witness evidence is unknown.
I think we should bring to the Governor's attention that if the Governor is satisfied that Holt's case is substantially the same as that of the others, he should be accorded the same treatment.
"To proceed asking for all the papers in the case as proposed in JJA.2219 on 20089/99 Jul 23/09 by Mi Cox's minute on this proper."
Write to M-Lawson & say that Holt's case was considered and, as at present advised, there do not seem to be sufficient grounds for reopening it after this long interval of time. But say that after his appeal through Col: Hemp in 99, in reply which was given refusing to reopen the case, Holt, in the statement which accompanies his petition, says that he wrote to Mi Chamberlain (Duke of Devon). This letter cannot be found; we would be glad to know whether Holt can say if he ever received any answer and, if not, why he waited for 3 years before making a representation.
Then the papers can wait for Mi Cox, but I think that the case should not be reopened.
The petition is unsigned, but for the present, we need not notice this point.
CP.L 23 Sept
Page ...
...
at same