10.. nevertheless contained a point which he considered indecent. With this last admission I do not think much matters which were between the two it was.
of the Tother Johnson
7. In a letter dated the 5th of November Dr Eitel challenged the accuracy of Mr Johnson's version of what had happened at the interview, but in a subsequent letter (28th November) to Mr Johnson he withdrew his letter of the 5th and expressed his sincere regret that it should have caused Mr Johnson to consider that he had questioned the accuracy of the statement upon which the action Hayllar v. Schiff was founded, which accuracy he admitted.
18 In another letter to Mr Russell (Registrar General and acting Judge of Supreme Court) at a later date (1 Dec) Mr. Johnson enquired whether the statement on the same subject which Dr Eitel had made to Mr Russell tallied with Johnson's account of the statement made to himself.
11 Mr Hayllar of the 28th of Nov Dr Eitel wrote as follows:
"I herewith assure you. 'Though I was acting in good faith in what I said on the subject matter mentioned in the petition filed in the court, and wrongly believed myself at the time to be acting strictly within the sphere of my duty, I do now, from the new light I have now reason to take of the case, unhesitatingly admit that the substance of the allegations against yourself, as specified in the petition, is not true and I therefore beg to withdraw what statements I made and apologise to you for having made them'."
19 Mr Hayllar's solicitors, on the 30th of November, gave notice of withdrawal of the action.
20 In what light must Dr Eitel's conduct have appeared?
*
10..
nevertheless contained
∞
punt which he considered indecent. With this last
admision I do not think of
much matters which
two it was.
of
the
Tother Johnson
7. In a letter dated
the 5th of November or Eitel challenged the accuracy
of
Mr Johnson's version of what had haped at the
interview, but in a subegan
Weller) of the 28th of November he withdrew his letter of the
to Mr Johnson
and expressed his sincere regret that it should have
caused Mr Johnson to consider
that he had questioned the
accuracy of the statement upon
which the action Hayllar v. Schif
was founded, which accuracy
he admitted.
18
In another letter to
24
Note
At a later date (1 Dee) Mr. Johnson enquired of Mr Russell (Registrar General and acting
Judge of Supreme (occnt) whether the statement on the same subject which Dr Eitel had mille
to Mr Rufell tallew with Johnson's
ccount of the statement made to himself. Mr Pripell
11
Mr Hayllar of the 28th of Now? dr Eill wrote as
Dr
follows
Hat
"I herewith a pure you
"Though I was acting in good
"Laith in what I said
on
the
"subject matter mentioned in the "pelition feled in the court, and "Wrongly
believed myself at
8
"the time to be acting scriply within
the sphere of my duty, I do now, from the new I have now
" reason to take of the case unhesitatingly admit that the substance of the allegation's agamot yourself, as specified in the petition, is not true and I therefore beg to withdraw what statements I made and apologice
to you for having made them": 19 Mr Hayllar's solicitors Мигарон, он
the 80
th of November,
gave notice of withdrawal of
the action
2-0
In what light
must
& Eitel's conduch have appeare
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.