1791-11-24 (static/transcriptions/1791/11/279.jpg)

(323

For Deft – No 2. Defendant’s Answer.
intended to produce on the part of the Prosecution upon such aforesaid Indictment, and therefore cannot anwer of what Rank or fortune such Witnesses might be, nor where any of them resides, nor whether it was impossible to prevail upon them, or any of them, to Remain a longer time in Calcutta, or to visit the place a Second time, for all or any or either of the reasons in the said Bill of Complaint pretended and alledged, or for any other reason whatever; but this Defendant believes that such several matters and each of them respectively so alledged and pretended by the said Complainants for such purpose in the said Bill of Complaint are not true, because this Defendant has been informed and believes that the names of the Several Witnesses indorsed upon such Bill of Indictment as Witnesses on the part of the Prosecution (and who this Defendant supposes would have been the principal Witnesses to be called on the part of such Prosecution) were North Naylor, James Durnford, Neaz Ally, Nunno, Zulfucul Ally, Syfullah Abadullah and one allee Mullah, which said north Naylor, the then attorney to the Complainants – the United Company, and James Durnford the then Clerk of the papers in this Honourable Court, were, as this Defendant is informed and believes, respectively resident in Calcutta aforesaid, for some years after such Bill of Indictment was found, and the said NEaz Ally and Nunnoo