note: transcription publicly contributed - please contact us with comments, errors or omisions

a doubtful one, and in requiring the bond only followed out the opinion of our legal advisor when a direct and distinct order was received from the owner, that document was addressed not to us, but to the parties to whom the money had been paid; consequently we had no right to interfere further in the transaction.
We must express our surprise at the statement of there not having been any "conflicting claim." Surely it is not intended to deny, that a claim was made by the party in holding the Bill of Lading from the owner, on the one part, and the Spanish Vice Consul on the other; if this does not constitute a conflicting claim, we must acknowledge ourselves in error on this point. The charge of want of any courtesy on our part we deny, but conceive ourselves justified in retorting in that particular with truth, not only as regards the present communication from Mrs Creighton de Grassie but also as respects the general tenor of their conversation on this subject.
Throughout this conversation we have not intentionally been guilty on our part of any want of courtesy to the Spanish Vice Consul, immediately on the receipt of the advice of the wreck, one of us, personally called on that gentleman, with the Master of the "Daring" for the purpose of consulting with him.