CORRESPONDENCE. THE HORSE CASE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume III, Issue 252, 25 May 1882, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE. THE HORSE CASE.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE STAR.

Sib, — In your report of the case, Hughes v. Muir, you omit to mention one or two facts which seem to me essential to a true understanding of the case. 1. That Dolau admitted that he does not know from whom ho bought the mare. 2. That Collins; to whom Dolan sold the mare, swore he had beon given a receipt but had burnt the receipt. 3. That Reid, who gave evidence that the Maoris had helped him to catch the mare at Taiporohenui, failed

to produce, or mention the name of, any Maori who assisted him. 4. The uiara was nob bred at T»iporoheuui, and Maoris there would very likely not know her, so that if n tribe helped to catch the mare, it was not a tribe with, any tribal claim in the animal. I believe 20 Maoris T>n be produced who Trill testify that the animal belongs, and always did belong, to Kau, that she was stolen during 1 his irupvisonmenfc at Parihaka, and I beg leave to thiuk that those who bought the mare' should be called upon to shov that they bought from {he rightful owner and not from thieves. — I am, <fee,

John Muir.