WHO WAS SHOT AND WHO WAS NOT?
A duel was recently fought by Alexander Sliott and John No-tt. Nott was shot and Shott was not. In this case it is better to be Shott than Nott. There was a rumour that Nott was not shot, and Shott avows lie shott Nott, which proves either that the shot Shott shot at Nott was not shot or that Nott was shot. Notwithstanding that circumstantial evidence is not always good, it may be made to appear on trial that the* shot Shott shot shot Nott. or, a:; accidents with firearms are frequent, it may be possible that the shot Shott shot, shot Shott himself, when the whole affair would resolve into its original elements, and Shott would In* shot and Nott would be not. We think, however, that the shot Shott shot shot not Shott hut Nott. Anyway, it is hard to tell who was shot and who was not. —“Exchange.”
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/WHIRIB19280218.2.33
Bibliographic details
White Ribbon, Volume 33, Issue 391, 18 February 1928, Page 11
Word Count
158WHO WAS SHOT AND WHO WAS NOT? White Ribbon, Volume 33, Issue 391, 18 February 1928, Page 11
Using This Item
Women's Christian Temperance Union New Zealand is the copyright owner for White Ribbon. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this journal for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. This journal is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Women's Christian Temperance Union New Zealand. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this journal, please refer to the Copyright guide
Log in