Untitled

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 1598, 8 July 1885, Page 2

So our just and fair criticism on the Hospital Land Case has brought a threatened action for libel upon us. We presume that our strictures are unanswerable, and that the object of the action is to place the affair under the cognizance of the Courts, so that further exposure of what has all the appearance of a tortuous proceeding will be arrested for the present. We have attributed nothing to Mr Sinclair but what the facts will bear out. His own published letter is the source from whence we derive much of our information. The offer of the land came from Mrs. Williams. We have seen her letter. Yet Mr Sinclair says he is the party ; and even claims to have given the site. “ I the honor, as the donor of the hospital site of 50 acres of land,” so he writes to the Borough Council. Now, it is not true that it was given. It was offered in exchange for the present hospitd site and building; and the offer came from “Mary A. Williams,” not from J. J. Sinclair. If he was operating under Mrs Williams’ name most people would say that was underhand work. Then again, his letter admits that the block of land, which is now being forced on the Hospital Committee, “ differs from the original offer.” He says so iu his letter—says that it is a “ fact that it does so differ. That is exactly what we have said, and we would ask what right he had to make it differ without letting the Committee know of it, and seeing whether they agreed to it 1 He says he instructed Mr, Dobson to lay off the site in this

different manner. An honorable man would have gone to the Committee to see whether they agreed to the new boundary, As he did not do so, he is liable to the imputation of secrecy. The circumstances disclosed show the Committee to have acted as though they were dealing with honorable persons; and we can quite unclerstand how nonplussed they must have been when they found out that a wrongful description and boundaries were inserted in the Act. Nor do we see how Mr Sinclair will ever be able to make anyone believe that his conduct, even as disclosed by his own letter, has been honorab’e. We think it rich indeed that Mr Sinclair should be so very nice and sensitive because “certain members of the Hospital Committee ” are of opinion that the facts show “ underhand work ” on his part, considering that iu a letter signed “ Mary Williams,” (which from Mr Sinclair’s letter to the Borough Council we understand to mean J. J. Sinclair). She (or he) writes to the Colonial Secretary of this very Hospital Committee in this fashion :—“ Sir, —I regret to have to trouble you so much in this matter but owing to the unfair and un business-like spirit in ivhich I am treated by a faction of the local Eos pital Committee (the italics are ours) for reasons best known to themselves, 1 am compelled to again address you on the matter of the exchange of sites.” After thus villifying the Committee it really is a grand joke that Mr Sinclair should even complain, much less bring an action for libel, because we support the Committee in thinking there has been “ underhand work.” Let Mr Sinclair fire away with his action for “ wilful and malicious libel.” He will only find the trouble get greater as he goes on. We have another shot or two in the locker yet.