Correspondence.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 63, 16 March 1867, Page 3

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the •" Evening Mail.' Sir — I shall feel obliged by your publishing the annexed copy of correspondence in your paper of this evening. I am, &c, Donald Sinclair. Nelson, 16th March, 1867. Hammond v. Field. To John Poynter, Esq., Resident Magistrate, Nelson. Deab Sir — I send you the Nelson Evening Mail of the 9th instant, aud request you will read that part of the 2nd column of 2nd page, which I have marked. You will further oblige me by informing whether you made use of the expressions there reported to have been' used by you concerning me. As you have now decided this case, I consider myself justified in troubling you with this enquiry. I am, &c, Donald Sinclair, J.P. Nelson 14th March, 1867. To Donald Sinclair, Esq. Deae-—Sir — The paragraph in the Nelson Evening Mail is correct, as to what took place in Court, as far as the words underscored in ink, but the latter part is incorrect. What I said instead of the words struck out was that "I considered Mr. Sinclair had got out of temper unnecessarily, and therefore I had made the observations in consequence of the complaint of my clerk." I am, &c, John Pointer. Nelson, 14th March, 1867. Note. — The words Mr. Poynter denies using are — " The Magistrate said he considered Mr. Sinclair had shown very bad taste, was a great deal too fast, and must be taught not to interfere with matters he had nothiug to do with." Hammond v. Field. To John Potnter, Esq.:, Resident Magistrate, Nelson. Dear Sir — I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of^this date, as to the paragraph in the Nelson, Evening Mail of the 9th instant, containing observations against me in connection with this case ; since which I have communicated with the reporter of the Evening Mail and with Mr. Albert Pitt, and they both assured my clerk that the' paragraph to which I called your attention is, notwithstanding your disclaimer, correct in substance. Under these circumstances, I do not feel inclined to sit down tamely when attacked behind ray back. What I said in the Police Office — and I considered I was then speaking as a magistrate, and not as a solicitor — was that in granting a summons against Mr. Field for stealing bricks, you had acted with undue haste, and that the case was one of a purely civil na*ure. I say so still ; for had you given the case, when Hammond complained, the most cursory investigation before issuing the summons, you would not have granted one. This is also clear from the decision you came to on the hearing, namely, a dismissal of the complaint. I reserve to myself, as oue of the public, a right at ali times to express my opinion as to the mode in which justice is administered in this province ; for I cannot forget that when I held the same office as you now do, you and the party you then acted with never spared me for the least slip. In conclusion, I beg to say I shall publish this correspondence. I am, &c, Donald Sinclair. Nelson, 14th March, 1867.