En
despatch to the S. of. S.
I forward you a copy of my capt (dated 26th September ) from which y will see that gamperty and I gave a decision in the Full Cast in favor of
the Crow on the question of Cost in habeas corpus proceedings again Sun. A. Wan and that we were asked by the Crown (as a fact by Cram Solor) to sit on appeal The question of Costs only from decision of The CJ (Piggote) who had and arded costs against the Ca in former habeas corpus proceeding Faken by the same man
"Sun a way In the man howing subsequently been re-arrested whilst the appeal, the quest can of costs in the forme procusmp was outstanding. Hyecti fact been taken to my
hat as a
a
,
pan
A
whe
Sitting an appeal from Piggott withe former proceed and that
grand
an
p
was
4.9.
3909
leave to affect was afflies for and 3? It I had, affer hearing the facts from Ababesten a junior Counsel, Consented to the affhentian being made, but the gist application of he whole matter was we had gwein
fully considered findgment Question of cats which governed
ست
far
as we were Cancers all
such
A
he
habeas
So
coupon procndings as we held cats do not lie against the Crane and to have quien another judgment on the same Question would have been a farce and I kmk you
urie
·
agree with my remarks 344 of my letter. However his is has chimaterial as
m
i paras
as
Tay has acquiesced in my submission that the S. of 5's mistruction Should not apply in my case (see para 2 of "my letter.") He writes" "The will recommend " to the Securtiry of State that the reading "against the attorney general acting "Chief Justice shaned in the cucumstances "you mention not apply to you? _ I
hope I may
ask that his recommendation May be dosented to by he 5. of 5. -
It is I teinis very impressable that