The paragraph complained of was in my Minute in 19439 and I imagine upon my Minute in 17054.
Jul 23.
The article speaks. It is inferred upon Captain Thomsen's allegation in par 23 of his letter viz that neither of the other papers have been supplied with copies of the papers, which in fact were not published till a later date, 17054 - indicative that they have not had opportunity for studying Official Documents, which were not public till July 12.
Tonnochy did not say what the papers were laid in writing before the Council off hand, was justified by the information for prosecuting.
The Board of the Council by the words at this junction does not appear to imply that he did not receive a copy. The date of laying them before Council is not stated, & the minutes of first half of 1881 are not yet printed here. It is a fact that the printed Papers as laid.
This was not in the book here. J. off. & he is unable to recollect & has sent the documents as published in the Gazette of 23 July - do not contain any information relating an alleged fracas between Capt. Thomsen or Dr Still on the occasion of the defendant's examination and cross-examination by off in April 1881.
Save a circumstance mentioned with some prominence in the Article, he is in doubt whether the Council papers & the Gazette papers are identical.
3. Put the digest?
1.
2.
Omit this last form.
7/16/2 write I think according to 1.
The form in this case they were laid in a printed form, he does not send them, which is unfortunate for the article.
Mentions circumstances which do not appear as printed in the Gazette.
Feb 14.
Feb 17.
with addition,
in to Jrafens.
J
rasm In hunting.
Page XX
was not found, however, the original text has some page-related information, here are the lines:...
Gut Feb 14
...
Jul 23
...
K feb 17
...
No change was made as there is not enough information.of the papers till the Catta date, we ch if the paragraphe is dood thism bertay 's
Say so, while allowing
despertad? Say so.
that the paragraft referred to is,
valle as it now affecus,
Porrect
not wholly
CPL.
14. Feb.
Gut Feb 14
The paragraph complaince of was
was bane Timagine apon My Minute in 19439 wind Themanth
m 17054
ره
Jul 23
A
The article-suck. It in
Inreudd upon Captain Thonisetts allgation in par 23 of his lettere vis that reither of the other papus have been dupplice with copies of the papers, which in facts deve Not Jublished till a later date, 17054 - indicative Hat the to have had opportunity for studgang Official Dreuments. which were not public thee July 12 -
IN: Tonnorhy Did not day What the papus wen laisk in
writh
*
Mint befor the Conncil off han, was
The
bythe information for prosesand -
Jelly justified
142
B up. The Bends of the Cancel bythe with at this Junction Dons gest appear _ for having access" of
to imply
Cousser means that he did not
Kreive a copy. The date of lunging them Erfore Council is not statud, & the minutes of first half of 1881 are 20th yet-greind here. Art - a day that the printul Papers as laid. аль 1- Jefe Commonl
this-hack wise book here!
an out before . J. off. & Ze is Stenfor unable to recude & his sent the documents as published in the Jagette of 23. July-de got contain any information ni futing an allique fracas between (apr. Thomaett or Dr Sitil on the occasions of the indefendants framination anduwe by off in april 1881-
Sav a circumstance mentioned with dome prominence in the Artich, a hooth. is Thunfor in doubt whether The Cranial papers d the Jagathe papers
an idential
3. Put the diget?
I.
2.
Omit This last from.
7/16/2
write I thich according to 1.
wittimu
the
addition,
K feb 17
The for. In tills res they
woon laire in a pintul form, hel
Oves not dend them, which is unfortunate for the articl
Mentions circumstances which do not appear
as printed in the fagith.
in to Jrafens
J
rasm In hunting
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.