PALLOT V. FRANKLIN.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5162, 26 August 1878, Page 2

PALLOT V. FRANKLIN.

Sir,—Your contemporary this evening loses sight of the fact that Franklin having an order from the agent of the Union Company had a right to take the • case from the wharf, and to charge for delivering it to Mr Pallot. Your contemporary says, " The real question to be tried was the right of a carrier to go to a shipping office, and there to ask for and obtain a permit to remove a case of merchandise from the wharf without any instructions from the owner of the pro- , perty." ;What trash! Why should a Court try " the right" of a person—be he carrier or anything else—to go to a shipping office and there to ask, &c. Why, of course any man can "go to a shipping office," and any man can " there ask " for a permit to remove a case of goods. What law is there against a man going into a shipping office ? What law is there against his asking for a "permit?" J, What an ignoramus the writer of such r* trash must be ! s The "real question to be tried" was' whether Franklin had rightly possession of the case of merchandise, and whether being rightly possessed of it as a carrier he was justified in detaining it—by exercising the right of lien—until his charge for carriage was paid. It was proved that Franklin had this right. If the shipping agent was not justified in giving the order that is another matter. Really it's too bad of the Telegraph to lend itself to such a misrepresentation, and I cannot help thinking it is partly because the plaintiff in the case is a relative of a clerk in the office of the paper, and partly also because Mr Stuart is the Mayor of that vile Corporation who will not let the Telegraph dip too deeply into the municipal coffers.—l am, &c, Conn. Saturday evening, August 24.