English Translation

291 - 8 - dicson decision to raise an objection within the prescribed period of 1 5 days and that Nykl had expressly prohibited Dr. Lihalik from notifying the Czech lawyer of Prince Philipp Josias or his central law firm in Vienna of this decision, and that, on the basis of this state of law, by the decision of the District Court in Revuca E No. l66 of March 24, 1925, delivered on March 30, 1925, the forced administration of Nykl was granted and registered in the register and that even in the course of this decision the courts in Ludcenek, Feld, Tornalia, Brezno also approved and ordered this forced administration, I declare: The lawyer Dr. Mihalik in Revuca was never my lawyer. Rather, the same under-representative of the attorneys Josifko and Sobicka and the Viennese attorneys Tafler and Eisler, i.e. the attorney of Prince Philipp Josias. I also gave him no orders not to refer to Vienna. On condition that the attorneys Josifko and Sobicka have sent a notice of appeal to the courts, in which they have objected to the imposition of the Zvangsvorwaltung with all the reasons, as they have just been held up to me, since after my hearing, Mihalek had acted as an underperpetuated lawyer himself, I declare: It is quite right that these attorneys should have done so with exactly the same reasons, which have now been made available to me. However, they have not been successful in the courts, because the established foundations did not correspond to facts and Mi- halik was regarded by the courts as a legitimate representative of the service. In the Gogensteil, I informed the Vienna Central Chancellery of dicsom of impossible tax ruling. The Wion lawyers Dr. Eisler and Tafler at dom Presidents of the Genoral Finance Directorate in Bratislava have even shot and have