HUTT RIVER BRIDGE.

Evening Post, Volume LXI, Issue 95, 24 April 1901, Page 2

HUTT RIVER BRIDGE.

• TO THE EDITOB. Sir — The memorandum attached to Mr. Riddiford's letier (published in your issue of to-day) from Jkr. Beii, states that no proposals have eyer been mude to purchase the properties of Messrs. Twoiney and Feist. In his letter of 15th April, Mr. Riddiford, after referring to the rumours about his having tried to purchase the properties above mentioned, added that there Was not a grain of foundation for these rumours. He denies having either directly .or in any way attempted to negotiate with any owner of land in the vioinity in any way whatever. In accepting his challenge I state that I will prove that Mr. Riddiford has, through his solicitors, attempted to acquire land in the vicinity of the proposed site of the new bridge — land that he has no right to unless he does purchase it. This, as, any one reading my letter will clearly see, was the^condition on which I accepted Mr. Riddiford's challenge. Now, if Mr. Riddiford is still willing to accept my condition on the lines stated, there is no very urgent reason for lifting his cheque at the end of six days. Let him allow any reasonable time for us to consult. the Resident Magistrate as to when ha can hear the case, and I will waive my convenience to suit that of Mr. Riddiford in case the time appointed does not agree with his business, it Mr. Riddiford agrees to this, I will forward my cheque immediately I hear or see he has accepted this proposal. — I am, etc., JOHN WARD. P.S, — Your readers will see, tbat "Mr. Riddiford's stipulation that if I cannot get the case heard before six days from the time of my covering his cheque, he will lift bis is unfair, as I cannot compel tjie S.M. to hear it within lhat time, unless he is willing and has the time.— J.W. Waiwetu, 22nd April, 1901.