2110-4-3-7

Dene View Heaton Road Newcastle - on Tyne

Feb.y 11 1923

Dear Sir,

"Huntingtower" has given us great pleasure in this house, and if it will be of use to you to have this list of a few small printer's errors in it I shall be very glad.

Is it correct to use an oratio obliqua form in quotation marks as you have done eleven lines from the foot of page 16? I should either omit the "_" and spell There with a small t or write it: Then he laughed, and observed, in the language of his Youth, "There is life in the auld dowg yet."

There seems to be something wrong in the last two lines of page 198: "it's no right with him but excitement" does not appear to be sensible, and it has occurred to me that no right is really a printer's misreading of nought, which would make sense.

In line 10 of page 202, ought not eyes to be eyes'? That is to say, it was his eyes' settling and noting, and not his eyes, that wrung the exclamation from him.

In line 16 of page 202, I think the reading would be smoother if the comma after shoes were omitted, and similarly I would suggest the omission of the comma after farmyard in line 17

If you are right in spelling beild as you do in line 10 from the foot of page 203, as I have no doubt you are, it is an exception to the general rule of "i before e except after c". (Chamber's Dictionary has bield, however.)

2.

In line 9 from the foot of page 211, you write m' tutor's. The reason for the m' is not clear, for the same man says my luck, not m' luck, which is easier to say than m' tutor, five lines above.

In line 13 of page 232, beild appears again, which makes me think your way may have authority.

In line 14 of page 235, whom should be who (subject of was, not like whom, object of knew, in the next line).

In the first line of page 246, the hyphen at the end has become displaced.

In lines 8 and 9 of page 246, ought not all the auxiliaries to be the same? You have should ... should ... would: I suggest would in each case, keeping should be called upon in the next line unaltered, of course.

In line 5 of page 271, the word Great is not at the end of the line exactly.

In the first line of page 291, would it not be better to have a comma after inventiveness as well as after prudence? And in the following line, where the verb is to be understood from the first line, is it correct to understand were? That is to say, is it correct to have to make a mental change in the form of the verb?

These are all trifles; but I hope they may be of some small service.

Yours truly

Thomas Carter