CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XX, Issue 3930, 12 June 1877, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

■ » The Editor docs not hold hin l.olt' responsible fo r opinions expressed by correspondents. Sir, — Until tlxis morning I did not notice the Heiiald's account of the proceedings at tlxe Revision Court. Had I done so I should not have allowed it to pass uncorrected. Permit nxe now to state that I did not say Mr Locke had made enquiries, but that I made enquiries of him, and that I believed if ho and Mr Hamlin had attended many of the claims would have been struck out. I extremely regret that ixxj-- language should have been misunderstood, bxxt the statement respecting Mr Locke which lain x-epox-ted to have made is so grossly incox-rect that I should have been equally foolish and criminal if I had given utterance to it. But, six-, inasmuch as I told you personally, when you shewed me a telegram from Mr Locke on the subject, that I had not said what he

understood had been said, I should liko to know why, in your reference to the matter in to-day's Herald, you do not say that I deny tlxe correctness of the report '? Why did you, after my explanation to you, again seek to fix me with responsibility for a statement I never made ? And why do you regret my saying what I never said?— l am, &c, H. A. Cornford. June 11, 1877. [We did not understand Mr Cornford to have made the correction in question at tlxe interview referred to. Whatever he may have intended to have said, it is | quite clear that what he did actually saywas what he was reported to have said. Mr Locke obtained his information on the subject, we understand, in the first instance, not from our report, but from a gentleman who was present at tlxe Revision Court, and who gave a similar account of the proceedings to that wliich we gave, though more detailed. We do not suppose that Mr Cornford intended to convey an erroneous impression, and we are glad to see that he has now done what he can to set matters right. —Ed. 5.8.E77]