correction
Disregard the next entry, it is wrong... this is the correction:
A duel was fought by Alexander Shott and John Nott. Nott was shot and Shott was not. In thi scase it is better to be Shott than Nott. There was a rumor that Nott was not shot, and Shott avows that he shot Nott, which proves either that the shot Shott shot at Nott was not shot, or that Nott was shot.
Notwithstanding the fact that circumstantial evidence is not always good, it may be made to appear on trial that the shot Shott shot shot Nott, or since accidents with firearms are frequent it may be possible that the shot Shott shot shot Shott himself, when the whole affair would resolve itself into its original elements, and Shott would be shot and Nott would be not. We think, however, that the shot Shott shot shot not Shott but Nott. Anyway, it is hard to tell who was shot.
A duel was fought by Alexander Shott and John Nott. Nott was shot and Shott was not. In thi scase it is better to be Shott than Nott. There was a rumor that Nott was not shot, and Shott avows that he shot Nott, which proves either that the shot Shott shot at Nott was not shot, or that Nott was shot.
Notwithstanding the fact that circumstantial evidence is not always good, it may be made to appear on trial that the shot Shott shot shot Nott, or since accidents with firearms are frequent it may be possible that the shot Shott shot shot Shott himself, when the whole affair would resolve itself into its original elements, and Shott would be shot and Nott would be not. We think, however, that the shot Shott shot shot not Shott but Nott. Anyway, it is hard to tell who was shot.