.MzY1NTE.MTI5ODcy

From Transcribe Wiki
Revision as of 14:48, 30 November 2021 by Mshimes (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

[Renclusa?] Feby 24 [1833?] Dr Sir I regret that my former letter, in answer to your enquiries, should have been found susceptible of double constructive. Perhaps my meaning may be best illustrated by a series of propositions. 1. The party has a right to require that the interrorgations shall be preforwarded in writing. 2. He has the right to demand a copy of such interrogatory. 3. He has a right to sufficient time to understand the interrogatory & to prepare a correct & well advised answer. 4. No particular time is allowed, & therefore he cannot require a month, or a week, or a day or an hour, at his own mere will. Therefore 5. He may require enough time in each case to understand the interrogatory & prepare his answer, as stated in 3. 6. Some person other than himself, must be the judge of what is the proper time, for [otherwise?], the party might defeat the