1777-12-01 (static/transcriptions/1777/12/004.jpg)

1777. Sittings. [Monday] Dec. 1.

an”. I John Hyde, agree to this, except there should be incontrovertible proof of the Contrary. A Witness who had been sub-poena’d for the Plaintiff, not attending it was said, he was at that time and now, a Peon of the Cutcherry at Patna, Impey said “I do not doubt if the Gentlemen at Patna knew of this man’s being sub-poena’d, he being a servant of their’s” I reckon he meant by this an indirect was of saying it would be wrong if they did not, and in that opinion, if he meant it so, I entirely agree. But if he did not mean it Ironically, I differ absolutely, for I am sure, and it is notorious to Impey, and every body else, that all the Company’s Servants are desirous to put as many obstructions in the way of the Justice of this Court as they possibly can, or as they dare venture to do.
However if a Judgment in this cause could have been prevented, I think Palk would have been right by any proper means to have procured such a Judgment, for all that Palk had done in it, was giving an Order on it, as the Witness swore, as a [Judicial?] [ILL]. And though there was no Just=
= ification