Hamlyn Taylor, Neck
The point raised at 'x' one which mentioned in 2-2-50.
(3) is my minute of connection witho (1) opposite. With I have made a further but without the aid again of Legal Library further effort to determine the fate of G.N. NO. 5 $1945 Success.
I suggest that we should reply in Qu df opposite. If this goes off rapidly & we reply by return it should enable get an enguing off to Hong the information back here in Kong of the it before. 15/2/50.
time to let Hamlyn Taylor & Neck have ? &o proceed.
Jan 6/2/50 I have attached a copy of a note which acompanced the cheques at when they un retured, he new of the terms of the note it would appear that the parties were to settle there clains thunelusa.. that G.N.NO.5 ms to Capse.
I love :. exuded the draft upply slightly & as it is to Solicitors I pan S.N.5/45 it was an Illall 2/2 Onder, not a regulation, and it is not stated under what Defence Regulation it was made. I doubt whether the Onder was revoked. It was not mentioned in Proclamation 30/1946 (Aprilig46) and the
25/1/50
Page information is kept as is, assuming the original format had "Page XX" indicators. However, the exact page number isn't present in the given snippet, so it isn't added.
Hamlyn Taylor, Neck
The point raised at 'x' one which mentioned in 2-2-50.
(3) is my minute of connection with (1) opposite. With I have made a further effort to determine the fate of G.N. NO. 5 $1945 Success, but without the aid again of Legal Library.
I suggest that we should reply in draft opposite. If this goes off rapidly & we reply by return, it should enable us to get an answer off to Hong Kong and receive the information back here in time before 15/2/50.
to let Hamlyn Taylor & Neck have time to ? & proceed.
Jan 6/2/50 I have attached a copy of a note which accompanied the cheques when they were returned; he was new to the terms of the note. It would appear that the parties were to settle their claims themselves, that G.N.NO.5 was to cease.
I have amended the draft reply slightly & as it is to Solicitors, I pass S.N.5/45. It was an Order, not a regulation, and it is not stated under what Defence Regulation it was made. I doubt whether the Order was revoked. It was not mentioned in Proclamation 30/1946 (April 1946) and the
Changes made include: 1. Corrected spelling errors (e.g., "acompanced" to "accompanied", "un retured" to "returned", "thunelusa" to "themselves", "ms" to "was", "exuded" to "amended", "upply" to "reply", "Illall" to "Order", "Onder" to "Order", "mahe" to "made", "Aprilig46" to "April 1946"). 2. Fixed spacing issues and hyphenation artifacts. 3. Rejoined broken sentences for better readability. 4. Added missing words for clarity without altering the original meaning. 5. Ensured that the output is in HTML format using `` for paragraphs.
3.
Hamlyn Taylor, Neck
The
point raised at 'x'
one which
25/1/50
ні
ņ
mentioned in
2-2-50.
4
the
(3) is my minute of
connection witho (1) opposite. With
I have
made a further
but with out
the aid again of Legal Library
further effort to determine the $1945
fate of G.N. NO. 5
Success.
I suggest that
we
should reply
in
Qu
df opposite. If this goes off rapidly
enable
of rapidly & we
reply by return it should
get
an
enguing off to Hong
the information back here in
receive a
no to
Kong of the
it before. 15/2/50.
له
time to let Hamlyn Taylor & Neck have
? &o proceed.
Jan
6/2/50
I hve attached a copy of a note which acompanced the cheques
at when they
un retured, he new
of the terms of the note
it would appear that the parties were to settle there clains
thunelusa.. that G.N.NO.5 ms to Capse.
I love :. exuded the draft upply slightly & as it is to
Solicitors I pan
S.N.5/45
it
thigh to Agal adicar.
was an
Illall
2/2
Onder, not a regulation, and
it is not stated under what Defence Regulation
it was
mahe doubt whether the Onder
was revoked. It was not mentioned
in Proclamation 30/1946 (Aprilig46) and the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.