Dan, yes in paragraph 1, as Nortrom says.
In paragraph 2, the only problem with the Gwynplaine affair from that time is that there was no announced enforcement of double chasing at all then. So we were forced to ignore the double chase aspect of that case. Today there is. Still, by the book today, if we don't have the complaint and evidence by the victim of the d/m chase, then we're not going to go looking for cases. But since we are definitely now policing this offense we aren't going to allow it to slide by in a case similar to what you mentioned. If we see double chasing by a Gwynplaine seeking a draw refusal, we're not going to ignore it.
If Gwynplaine is breaking the rules by double chasing his opponent, today he will not be able to complain his opponent is refusing a draw. Any ruling for such a flagrant rule breaker makes a travesty of the rules.
In fact in the gwynplaine case we assumed there was double chasing because gwynplaine was so nice to say he was double chasing his opponent. But one could imagine that in same case the victim of the double chasing was retreating to his field with the miner on the right side, then gwynplaine abandoned the double chasing leaving his own strong piece on his field, then started again double chase when the miner came back. We don't have the real evidence that it was really double chase. So what do you do if instead of double chasing the miner was in his field and the strong piece of gwynplaine was just following it from the other side of the lake. This would be chasing from distance instead of double chase. Would the same rule apply?