Document 93, Letter from Mr Letteney to Mr Heron, 4 June 1788, p 1
| Dr Sr | ||||
| Errington v Aynsley & ors. I’ve had a consultation at | ||||
| Mr Scotts last night, and Mr Errington expressing a desire to | ||||
| have the issue tryd at York instead of Carlisle, Mr Scott | ||||
| directed me to give notice of motion for to Morrow, that ye | ||||
| Ra Heron Esq* | minutes of the order may be amended, by inserting “at the | |||
| Newcastle on | next Ass for the County of York” instead of the next &c. This | |||
| Tyne | will not be oppos’d. There were two reasons wch operated | |||
| with Mr E. for desiring this vt. That there wou’d be a better | ||||
| and more independt Jury, and Smeaton wou’d have more | ||||
| attention given to his Testimony &c. Mr Scott does not go to | ||||
| York, and he is rather inclin’d to think that he will | ||||
| not be able to attend at Newc or Carlisle. As to the | ||||
| Evidence, he has taken Time to consider of it and will | ||||
| state in writing, what he thinks, it will be necessy for | ||||
| Mr E. to adduce. I shoud suppose that he will point the | ||||
| Evidence to the Expence of reinstating the Bridge. | ||||
| Neither Your Affidt or Davidsons was read at the | ||||
| Hearing. | ||||
| Sr Thomas’s petition comes on next petition day. | ||||
| We don’t intend to visit the North this year | ||||
| I am Dr Sr Yrs J Letteney | ||||
| 4 June 1788 |
Abbreviations are underlined like this Wm. and the expansion may be seen by moving the cursor over it.
| An entry outlined like this has a note which may be seen by hovering over it. |
Transcribed by GB