H.
5.
29
understand what Mr Forth means to convey by the language of his letters, but the impression left on my mind by his letter was that he thought Mr Bracefote had not tendered, as he asserted, the amount demanded.
As to Mr Forth's veracity being called in question, I can only say no such imputation was intended, the object being to point out that his impression that the writs were issued was incorrect.
Mr Forth states that his expression was that Warrants had been granted, and he never said they had been issued - it is not easy to comprehend the difference - for if a Warrant be granted, it must issue.
Letter No 55 and Warrants would have issued in this case as a matter of course, if the Summary Jurisdiction Judge had not looked at the notices before signing the documents.
I think there can be little doubt that Mr Forth in using the expression "when previously instant the Court of Summary Jurisdiction granted two hundred and four Warrants" on the 18th Oct. 1863 believed them to have been issued - It is a mere play upon words and is not worthy of further notice.
Mr Forth states that my letter No 1,240 in his opinion called for an indignant refutation of the matters laid to his charge - but his reply conveys...
H.
5.
29
understand what Men Forth means
to co
convey by the language of his letters,
but the impression left
his letter
on my
my mind by was that he thought Mer
Bauncefote had not tendered, as he asserted, the amount demanded.
As to Mex Forth's veracity being called in question, I can only say no- such imputation
was intended the object point out that his impression
was
to
that the writs were issued was incorrect.
Mez Forth states that his ~
expression
was
that Warrants had
been granted, and he never said they
had been issued- it is not
easy
-
to
comprehend the difference - for if a Warrant be granted, it must isone-
Letter No55
and Warrants would have issued in-
this case as a matter of course, if
the
Summary Jurisdiction Judge had not looked at the notices before signing
the documents
I think there can
be little
doubt that Mr Forth in using
the
on the set
expression "when previously "Instant the Court of Summary
of 18th Oct. 1863 Iuris diction granted two hundred and
"four Warrants" believed them to have been issued - It is a mere play upon-
words and is not worthy of further notice.
Men Forth States that
my letter Ne 1,240 in his opinion called for
aw
indignant refutation of the matters laid to his charge- but his reply conveys
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.