IN RE A SOLICITOR.

Press, Volume XIX, Issue 2817, 13 May 1872, Page 3

IN RE A SOLICITOR.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. ' Sir, —Referring to the portion of Mr Garrick's affidavit, which you say was j omitted from your previous report of the j case by my request, and which was published | by you on Saturday, at the request of Messrs ! Duncan and Jameson, I have only to say, that at the hearing Dr. Foster, on their behalf, complained that Messrs Duncan and Jameson's letter, in reply to our letter, making charges against Mr Hart, had not been brought before the Court, and that it was, therefore, unfair to Mr Hart that his conduct should be judged without it. I spoke to the reporter (Mr Hart's brother) and said, we have no wish to place the matter unfairly before the public, and as the letter in reply to the charge is not before the Court, I consent to the non-publication of that portion of the affidavit relating to him. ■T would observe, in conclusion, that Messrs Duncan and Jameson's letter, published by y _>v, as part of the evidence, was not before the Court. 1 am, Sir, your obedient servant, \V. P. Cowlishaw. Christchurch, 11, 1872. TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —I would ask a small space in reply to a letter signed " W. P. Cowlishaw," in this day's issue. In the first place, Mr Cowlishaw ingeniously endeavors to shift the ouus of the non-publication of a portion of Mr Garrick's affidavit on to mc, by saying " I consented to the non-publication of the affidavit referring to Mr Hart." Now so far from this being the fact, it was at the express solicitation of Mr Cowlishaw that I omitted that portion of the affidavit, and further than this, to show that I had no bias in the matter, and to clear myself of the charge of partiality I endorsed the omitted portion in pencil as follows: —"Not published by request of Mr Cowlishaw." From the way Mr Cowlishaw has put it in his letter, it seems, as no doubt it was intended to do, that I asked him to allow that portion of Mr Garrick's evidence referring to my brother to be omitted, but as shown above it was exactly the reverse. With respect to the letter of Messrs Duncan and Jameson not being before the Court, it is true that it was not filed in the case, but counsel for the Law Society referred in the severest terms to the conduct of the other side in making such an affidavit when they had the letter before them, and I would only in conclusion remark, that it is not published as part of the evidence, as there is a distinct heading to it. Yours, &c, Geo. R. Hart, Eeporter Press.