SOMERVILLE V. LAMBERT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 539, 21 June 1909, Page 4

SOMERVILLE V. LAMBERT.

Sir,—As.-my'.' answers given in -evidence wore not fully'reported, a wrong impression may have been given to tho public; many of whom do not realise the difference' between' the mere'suggestion of' counsel and the actual sworn evidence of the witness. Mr. Lambert's son. volunteered his-"ad-vance to obtain the management and rentß of various properties, as ho had recently started in business, and he has ample security, and tho amount has, boen substantially reduced by cash' payments. In addition to tho first mortgago of £400 oyer 120. acres of freehold, ho has a first charge on four sections at Belmont, proporty at Johnsonville, and a sub-mortgage on shares in- the Houghton Bay Estate, and I am personally responsible for the repayment of the balance' duo, £300.;: •;:'.■ ■!.-''•' For Mr. Bright's advance a first mortgago was givoti over a mortgago of £6830 on a farm valued by three competent valuers at oyer £10,000. .The property, was reported as being able to. carry over 2000' sheep, and as containing ovor.- 200,000 cords of firewood, selling at. a royalty, of. 4s. per cord/ which would 'total £40,000 for these rights, alone. This'mortgage also extended over nine houses, and I,'am personally liable for the wholo amount. It ib absurd to say, that this security is not worth a rap, etc. .:' In Court'l .emphatically;'denied the vile charges" suggested' against mo, which wore entirely irrelevant, and,;l consider it : very objectjonablo that the witness-box should be used in this manner, and a person's character defamed without any attempt' being mado. to justify tho charges .madb.through the. privileged statements of counsel. . X have noycr! obtained one penny by misrepresentation or fraud, or any other unfair means, and I havo hovor had the inclination to do, so. I have always been willing to earn my living honestly/and fairly. ! My chief fault is that I have been too considerate to others,, and: I• havo -assumed obligations I could easily'have avoided. ■■'.':,;. In Court Mr. Lambert abandoned his alleged claim to bonuses, etc.' Had ho done so previously, there would have teen no necessity for htgation at all. Mr. Lambert's claim profit of from 80 per cent, to ISO por cent, pr annum, and he.was apparently dissatisfied witk'this.. ''■'.-,'

If Mr. Lambert wishes, to make - theso charges he ought to do so openly and speck fically, so as to; give mo an opportunity" of refuting the samp and recovering compensation for the. inevitable loss and'damage sustained by the-publication of the mere siig-. gestion of such accusations; •' never. at- : tempted .to avoid my. just obligations, and even.-" now 'my estate shows a .surplus of £11,000, which has taken years to accumulate, 'and "Which I must lose before my unsecured creditors' receive loss than their full claims.—l am, etc., •■■'..''•' '-,-'. , / 'W. G. SOMERVILLIL' ' ■•. Juno 15.''.•'..,