21
You inform me that His Excellency finds it impossible to understand my first explanation and I have to state that I construed Mr Pauncefote's letter as charging, although I was not indicated by name, the Office I hold with having made threats to him through the medium of his Clerk - I have Mr Pauncefote's letter before me but I believe it bears no other construction and in my letter of the 13th I wished to convey that "the threats" could not by any possibility have emanated from me.
I knew nothing of Mr Pauncefote sending a copy of Mr ... to the Treasury till you informed me of it by sending me his letter. I never wrote or said anything that could be construed into a belief on my part that Mr Pauncefote had not, as he asserted, offered at the Treasury on the 3rd Instant those rates which he should have paid before the last day in August.
This is a matter of opinion as to the meaning of part of Mr Pauncefote's letter. I shall be equally frank in avowal that I did not believe in the correctness of Mr Pauncefote's letter when, upon the authority of his Clerk, he asserted that he had been threatened with legal proceedings at the Treasury.
I was not so, in the first place because Mr Pauncefote's letter merely illustrates his own dark was used, not threats to him. Secondly, because I had before the 3rd Instant obtained that process pointed out in the 16th clause of Ordinance No 5 of 1863 as my remedy in all cases of dilatory or unpunctual payments.
Thirdly, because if any threats could by any possibility have been held out indirectly to Mr Pauncefote, the only person who in my absence could have done so was Mr Hyndman, who had however been absent from the duties of his office since 2 o'clock P.M. on the 2nd Instant when taken ill he had to go home, since which he has not returned to the Treasury, consequently I have no hesitation in disbelieving ...
21
You inform
me that this Excellency finds
it impossible to understand
my first
explanation and I have to state that I construed Mr Panicefote's letter as charging
although I was not indicated by
me,
name
OY
by the Office I hold with having
letter does state
frank in avowal that I did not
my believe in the correctness of Mr Panncefote's letter when upon the authority of his Clerk he asserted that he had been
Use Paunuption at the Treasury threatened with legal
in the first place because
Mr. Pauncef tithes - but merely letter merely we wiltrate his dark was
used threats to him through the mediuma he enclosed.
of his Clerk - I have Panncefote's letter before
it
my
can
то
copy of Mr
me but I believe
bear no other construction and in
letter of
the 13
the I wished to convey
that "the threats "could not by any possibility have emanated from
его
I knew nothing of M. Panncefote
sending
to the Treasury till
me of it by sending
I or
me
ན
you informed
me his letter.
never wrote or said anything
that
m
Proceedings,
I
never did so otherwise than by notice served upon him,
to the notice told that a warrant
wooned be applied for as the time for payment had elapsed which according to the notice was out the case.
This is a gratter of opinion as to the Forth's impression
could be construed into a belief on my meaning of part that M. Panncefote had not as The asserted, offered at the Treasury the 3rd Instant those rates which he should have paid before the last day in August, but I shall be equally
frant
secondly because I
had before the 3rd Instant obtained that process pointed out in the 16th clause
Ordinance N=5 of 1863 as
of
m all
cases
of dilatory
my remedy or unpunctual. payments, and thirdly because if any threats could by any possibility have
absence
been held out indirectly to Mr Panncefote the only person who in
my could have done so was Mr Hyndmaw who had however been absent from the duties of his office since 2 o'clock P.M. on the pet Instant when taken ill he had to
до
home, since which he has not returned to the Treasury, consequently I have no hesitation in disbelieving
5
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.