Wellington, November 2nd. His Excellency's decision in .Colonel M'Donnell's case, has been communicated The evidence taken before ttie Court-of Euquiry is very voluminous. The three principal witnesses were Sir George Grey, Messrs Sheehan and Brissenden. The latter brought no proof to show that the letter sent to him by M'Donnell was one of those said to have been misled from the Club ; on the contrary, it waa proved to have been delivered to M'Donnell, at his lodgings by some person unknown. Mr Sheehan; who had spoken to M'Donnell ou two or three occasions during the three days Brissenden's letter , was in M'Donnell's

possession—advised him on the 3rd day to send the letter at once to Brissenden. Sir George Grey (to whom M 'Donnell seat a few minutes after he had received the letter

read the whole or a portion of it, then re commended him to take legal advice, and suggested his speaking to Mr Sneehan. Frotin the evidence Sir George Grey appears to have been the only person who recommended the retention of Brissenden's letter by M'Donnell, and when asked by the Court for his reason for recommending M'Donnell to take legal advice rather than return the letter addressed to Brissenden at once to its owner, he said he thought something very wrong had been done by somebody, and that delay would give time for enquiry. The rinding of the Court is to this effect, that after receiving the letter at his lodgings M'Donnell read a portion of it before he ascertained it was addressed to Brissenden, but that on seeing it was so addressed he was guilty of highly improper conduct in not sending it at once to Brissenden with a note of apology and explanation. The Court at the same time considered that the great anxiety of mind under which M'Donnell was labouring about that time on account of imputations as to his veracity before the Tairua Committee, together with the injudicious advice he had received, were the causes of his so im properly retaining Brissenden's letter, taking a copy and showing it to oth«rs, such con duct being reprehensible and unjustifiable. The Court concluded by referring to Mr M'Donnell's high testimonials, distinguished service, and character. 