MR NALDER AND MR WEBB.

Press, Volume XXIV, Issue 3218, 23 December 1875, Page 3

MR NALDER AND MR WEBB.

to the editob of the press. Sir, —In reply to a very gross attack upon mc made by Mr Nalder, in this morning's paper, wherein he makes statements entirely at variance with the facts, I have simply to request that you will oblige mc by publishing the following letter from Mr Cowlishaw, who acted as my solicitor in the case referred to, after Mr Nalder had accepted the position of Borough Solicitor:— " Christchurch, New Zealand, " 22nd December, 1875. "H.R.Webb, Esq, Lyttelton. "Dear Sir, —In reply to -yonr request asking mc to state the facts connected with your rate case at Lyttelton Borough Council, I now have to state as follows :— '•On 6th June, 1871. I appeared for you at Lyttelton before Dr Donald, R.M., upon the hearing of /our case; Mr Nalder appeared and conducted the case for the Council. The rate sued for was made on 23rd May, 1870. " I contended that you were not liable to pay the rate upon several grounds, but Mr Nalder argued that the defence was not open to you, inasmuch as no proceedings had been taken under section 223 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1867. The Resident Magistrate decided against you. A report of the case appeared in the Lyttelton Times of 7th June, 1871. "I understood that Mr Nalder had previously been acting for you in the matter, and my instructions were that he had omitted to give notice of appeal under the section of the Act. " The case went on appeal to the Supreme Court, when Mr Nalder also acted as solicitor against you. " The decision of the Resident Magistrate j was reversed on appeal. " I am, yours faithfully, " W. P. Cowlishaw." I should also draw attention to the following report of the case in question, taken from the Lyttelton Times of June 7th, 1871: — Lyttelton Borough Council v H. R. Webb. Mr Nalder appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Cowlishaw for the defence. A long argument on the various clauses of the Act ensued ; Mr Nalder contending that, as the defshdant had ..not availed himaelf of the 223 rd clause, he must pay the amount; Mr Cowlishaw's argument was, that the Council had no right, nor could they levy a rate on land vested in the hands of the Superintendent, and not within the borough, such as the defendant's property was. The Bench considered that the defendants 1 had not availed themselves of the provisions of the clause referred to, and must give judgment for plaintiff, with right of appeal. Mr Cowlishaw gave notice that he should appeal against the decision. I .may further state that I defended the demand of the Borough Council at the solicitation of Mr Nalder. 1 .It lis not my habit speak of other 9in the offensive tone adopted by Mr Nalder ; it is sufficient for mc to allow the evidence given above to speak for itself. Yours obediently, H. R. Webb. Lyttelton, December 22nd, 1875. P.S —Since writing the above this afternoon, I have again read Mr Nalder's letter, and see he states that the appeal at the Resident Magistrate's Court was heard on 27th June, 1870 ; it should have been 6th June, 1871, eight months after Mr Nalder was appointed Borough solicitor, he acting against his late client (myself), thus proving j Mr Nalder has made a palpable misstatement of facts.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE PRESS. Sib—l find that in my letter of yesterday I have made an error in the first date. It should read—Early in September, 1869, instead of the 19th September. I shall feel obliged by your allowing mc to correct this. Yours, &c, Henry N. Naldeb.