in which he states that "I ham In" denied
having given himbrites durict, is contradicted Is refort; and
by th
f t
the
May's evidence actually
a question in his presence
I think Mr. May's andhouty should prevail.
reason
The case
seems
clear
family ofs.
?
Refly that the
les nÒ
to alter his previous decision (183),
to approve live action of the Gavemment.
Su W. Hamitter
I don't think this is
Some of its
whe it
though the cordance in
i
Dur
not ar valisfa
h.M 7
ban
valisfactory
A. F. 238
Imbfful case
reconsidered,
whe
been
almost all these case,
a-1
ای که
comed with The
first allowed to resign & subsequents dismissed because the Cuptsaft. obtaine proch fhs having heer divilly bibed, a rather of his berry asked Sam
yin
to increase the fragments made when through Jang kom. According to Sam yor's evidence, he fruit gote yo cents per diem, then
$1.20 + finally $1.50.
Aut
suggested.
[Thr
bush
money.
#Fis
23/8.
? Refly
I was
Sam
Jins and
endence
has
वू
Ata carce
and
corse been comidewly
of taking andice has also gred pound
dexcredited in
may's systems
from cisticcome.
I his care
teens
-
mainly to depend whom
value to be attacked
Sour Gins ardenne, t
to
166
the atty fut (ca. 3) conadie
is
good wough.
absolutes
Mi non
but
Conclusive
бали
Jü
andean is Елбий
wilejo
Obe rejected altogether,
may
Wh
thisile accept the leve
2 чере
crew of the case, a purposed
27/8
Refure to intafere C.Pd.
31 at once
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.