AN EXPLANATION.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1913, 23 June 1869, Page 2

AN EXPLANATION.

(To the Editor of the Evening Star.)

Sir, —My attention has just been directed to the report given in your issue of Monday last, relative to the suit, Condon (not Condor) v. Hyndman, and as the same is represented in an entirely different light to the public than what took place at court, I trust you will favor me with space in your journal for the following statement. The facts are these :—I never employed Condon in any capacity, either as arbitrator, bricklayer, or oveu-huilder. Through some information he received (from whom I know not), he called upon me, and stated that he “ understood I had an oven to build.’ 1 I replied I had, and whilst engaged describing the work I wanted done, Crawshaw, the bricklayer, at the recommendation of Messrs Calvert and Campbell, stepped in, and asked me likewise about the oven.

After < rawshaw had made an inspection, I enquired how much it would cost to be completed in a workmanlike manner, to which he replied, L 23. I at once accepted this tender, as I knew Crawshaw to be a bricklayer, and the other merely a plasterer. I stated distinctly in the Court, with reference to the arbitration fee that Condon sued for, that I did not acknowledge his services at all, as I had previously expressed my willingness to abide by the decision of Messrs Calvert and Campbell’s arbitrator. Apologising for occupying so much of your valuable space, —I have, Ac., James Hyndman. [Mr Hyndman certainly stated in Court all that he has stated above, but as much of it is immaterial to the issue, it was omitted in our condensed report. —[Ed. E.S.]