THE MAYOR AND ATHLETICS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 12, 15 January 1914, Page 8

THE MAYOR AND ATHLETICS

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— -At a meeting of the Carnival Committee, held recently, in answer to a question thereat, the Mayor is reported in your paper as having said that ho would contribute to any foolery that the members of the council were capable of. After reading his reply to my allegations as to tho manner in which the council treated our club, I am satisfied that he is a man of his word. It is a great pity though that he did not leave his "juggling with facts" act till the Carnival. A brief review of his reply will show that he ie not "Wright" this time, and it should also prove to him that he wants a "Fuller" idea of what is expected of him before rushing into print, otherwise he can consider himself "Luckie" if ho does not turn out a "Froet." It 1b quite true that we applied for the Basin on a day that sports were being held at Trenthaim, but the Mayor forgot to state that our application was in for same before it was decided to hold the sports at Trentliam. Hie plea that it was to prevent a clashing of dates that the council refused us the Basin on that day is a quibble, as I ehall show directly. His | next statement that we applied for the Basin for Labour Day and were refused ie contrary to fact. If the .Mayor will only recollect ho will remember that when I was before the council I stated that ! although the use of the Basin had been, granted to us for that day, yet we would { not use same as we had learned that the Newtown Fork had been granted for the Children's Pageant on the came day, and wo refused to run a counter-attraction to such a deserving object. The Mayor might also remember me saying to the council that I did not want to appear to be dictating to thorn how tp run their buemese, but that I thought it manifestly unfair for them to let out both grounds on tbe same day. This is exactly what they did do, because the Mayor admits that the Basin was granted to us that day, yet to excuse the council for refusing ue tho Basin on tho day that sports wer» being held out at Trentham, he says it was to save a clashing of dates. Ho next of all tries to prove that 20 per cent, of the gross takings is a fail charge. If that is so, I again ask 'him to explain why the council has since met and reduced the charge Awaiting his reply.— l am, etc., DAN MORIARTY, Oh«ir«i*n late Cycling »nd Athletic Club. 14th January.

An interesting point arose in the course of the civil sittings of the Magistrate's Court this morning. Defendant in a case contended through his counsel that the summons had not been properly served. Plaintiff pat in an affidavit that , the summons had been served on a Monday. Defendant swore that it was served at 10.30 on the previous night, and as the person who made the affidavit could not be produced His Worship held that tho summons had not been served, as under the law service on a Sunday is null and void. Two letters have been received from correspondents referring to the disturbance between ex-strikers and arbitrationists on the wharves on Friday night last, and stating that the latter outnumbered the former. The details of the affair, as published, were, obtained from the authorities, who made invest'satioiu, and upon tho matter being referred aaun to them, they verified the