The indictment often strikes me as damaging the reputation of the Commission, which stood above it, and I must respectfully bring this matter to your attention.
The alleged contempt is further put into my hands by inimical and a shameless persecution. "Judges should be", says Channell J., "and I believe generally are, careful not to allow proof of other ways of the prisoner besides those given in the indictment, unless there is a clear bearing raised by the indictment, and that is this position of things.
I'm appealing to the Secretary of State, who does not justify expecting your subject to be dealt with and which is used and bequeathed, except in any instance of kind treatment, unless it is wished to be further understood.
I have experienced past inquisitions with lavish treatment, and I maintain that any just, legal, and comprehensive mind would be astonished.
"Reg. v. M'Isaac" (1900) L.R. 2 Q.B. 130 at 282 is relevant. I apologize for his gross, libellous, and untrustworthy misstatements about the offices of unblemished character, and when brought to the charge, especially in Weglages, the Mants Itelments for his exceptional services, this trauma.
"Such an act", tersely puts Gibbs, C.J., "disregards every principle which actuates the conduct of an Anthemen, what is to restrain him except large damage.
The damages were claimed at the time for a public expression of wanton virulence, which the Chief Justice declined to fine, while they made the scapegoat and standard apology 8 Min withstanding. This is the basis of the whole of this persecution dating back to 7th July, 1903.
Does the reacting State fully realize that the one almost changed blot that the Chief Justice thinks I went "forming about" as a man of my age, standing, as in "Merest & Harvey" (1813) 5 Taunt. 443?
Page 7
...
Page 8
The indictment ofenste
me way the reput
of the Commission alove by it stood and
I must rempertfully rubrich treepen this
matter
bplay
hain
7
alleged contempt is further
into this hands of
inemily
and a shampul persecution. "Judges should be", says Channell J., " and !
I
belime generally
fenerally are, careful not allow proof of other way of the prismer beriden those the whijesh of the indictment the
given, walers there and have
bearing
a clear
raised by
A
indictment, and that is this position of things,
Immy appealing & sin
Secretary of states does not
the
not justify espering your ribject cheady dealt with and which is ush and beque hi
except any im instance
kine
treatment
gmy
unless it is wished Ishned further
underg
Cu
past apps
experienced.
pest inquisition with of
and such an I have
Lavany
7.
I maintain
aund to wonde
any just,
legal and comprajendices mind, bid he bit
"Meg & Mis
(1900)
L.M. 2Q.1.2.130 h.282
Kumar the full facts that it was
7215
In this fortice Share apologise for んぅ
his gros,
Ame
Exter
libellons and amprusted misult
offices of
umblamishend chancete
and when in born thighat the
Chries, especially in Weglages the Mants Itlements for his exceptional. services this traum. "Swiche Aner»» tersely puts Gibbs, C. J.," in a
A w
Case
There
disregandy every principle which
actuate the conduct.
of
Anthemen, what
is to restain him except lage damage.
The damages
were
I clanned at the time
nature
y the repet for a public
you expression
of
and wanto virvelt
which the Clinch Justice decline bftine while they made the scape coat and
andard Gepologize 8 Min withland. This is the basis of the whole of this persiention dating pa 7th July, 1903.
Кари 8. Does the reacting State fully
th
Valize that the one almond change blon
that
ofutter Chiry Justice think I went " forming about" & a man of myre.
of my age, standing
' Merest & Harvey (1813) 5 Zannt. 443.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.