ehird wrote: > On 19 Nov 2008, at 14:03, comex wrote: > >> How was it judged? > > > TRUE, I believe. along with the denying.
The history backs this up. Dunno why the summary omits Kelly's judgement (it doesn't do that for other ancient appealed cases); I'll look into it later. Context: At the time, there was a rule for submitting motions, which the judge would grant or deny. Kelly judged the case, and eir judgement was affirmed on appeal, but e failed to grant or deny the motion, so was recused and replaced with Taral for that purpose.
