MORI V. CRAIG.

New Zealand Herald, Volume VIII, Issue 2342, 28 July 1871, Page 3

MORI V. CRAIG.

To the Editor of the Herald. Sir, —By the reports of Monday's (the 10th inst.) newspapers I see that in the renowned ease " Mohi v. Craig" a verdict was given for the defendent on the four last issue*, and as I understood it, the long disputed logs are now decided to be the property of Mr. Craig, yet, notwithstanding this, Mr. Karris continues to cut thoin up—baring obtained possession, I believe, by contempt of the Supreme Courr — and disposes of the timber. Some twenty-two or twenty-three of these logs, which rrere picked up at the time when the creek booms carried away, were placed in Mr. Craig's mill boom?, to prevent their going to sea, wheie they still remain. On the Tuesday afternoon following the trial, and before I heard the decision, Mr. flan-is, with seven or eight men, came to me (I being in temporary charge of Craig's mill during the absence of Mr. John McFarlane), and demanded these logs, asserting that the verdict was for the plaintiff, and the logs his (Harris). Supposing he spoke the truth, and being unwilling to do anything in opposition to law. I allowed his men to jack a few of the logs into the tidewater withia the booms, but after a little reflection, his great haste to obtiin possession roused my suspicion that something was wrong. I thereupon desired his men to leave off work and not return, at tho same time sent a written notice to Karris, protesting against the removal of the logs, and his men working again on Mr. Cr.-ig's premises. Now, sir, if my interpretation of the verdict be correct, and the logs Mr. Craig's property, I consider it a most ungentlemanly action for any person to attompt to deceive and take advantage of a servant —j working man—by misrepresent! 1 ions, so as to induce that servant to make rway with property intrusted to his care. lam sure that anyone having the slightest claim to "gentleman" would spurn such an act. Your giving publication to the above would much oblige.— I am, &c., James Young.

DISCHARGING- OF VE3SELS. To the Editor of the Hekald. Sin. —I wish to bring uuder tho notice of those who have the power to remedy it, a serious annoyance and loss that the mercantile publ c have to submit to here, but which would not be tolerated anywhere but in Auckland. It is well known that the market ia quite bar# of several kinds of goods that have arrived by the Excelsior, but there is no getting delivery of the goods. She has now been long enough alongside the wharf to discharge a vessel twice her size, and day after day is being dawdled away drawing up empty watertanks , &c. Early next week the Hero will arrive, aud her cargo will be out in two or three days, aud those who have imported goods by tho Eicel-ior will hare ruined the market. I shall lose about twenty pounds on one article alone that I could place at a good profit in an hour if I eoul 1 obtain thorn in a reasonable time, but from appearances there seems no chance of getting the goods till the time has passed when they could sold to advantage. Can no steps i.. . ie matter P As the present arrangement are, they are a disgrace to the Port of Auckland.—X am, &c., Am Impobtbe.

UEVONPORT DISTRICT MEETING. To the Editor of the Herald. Sib, —At a meeting of trustees held on Tuesday, my name appeared rather prominently. I am accused of having made an excessive charge for some carting done more than a year since. The said carting was duly passed at the last election of trustees, unchallenged, and not, as stated by Mr. Cochrane, as part ol the £4*o not shown in last year's account.

For more than six months they refused to pay that account, on the ground of an overcharge, and not one of the trustees of that period had tho manliness to state the real reason—namely, that the work was done by Mr. Cochrane without the authority of the Board. Mr. Cochrane sent the man employed on the road for a horse and dray to cart shells, to do the footpath from the beach to the Presbyterian Church. He first went for Mr. Mays' dray, which he refused to send. Being Secretary to the Bjard he knew how matters stood. The man came for my dray, which was sent, and employed for several days! I charged 15s per day for man and horse. Whew the account was refused settlement, I wished to know on what grounds, and if they thought 15s per day too much. They admitted that it was nut, but they accused the man of not having and that I ought to havo charged- so; much ;por load.r The loads were counted, and 'tW sum exceeded my I charge. I was willing to deduct so much if

they had admitted the charge of 15s toojmuch, but on no account would I admit that the man had wasted time. I apologise for this long letter, but as the statement has been published so fully in the llekald, I think an explanation is needed, which I trust you will permit me thus to make, for it is cowardly of this Board to bring up a paltry matter of £2 17s, which was settled at last election of trustees. And, further, I beg to deny the charge Mr. Somerfield made against me. He said that I had placed as much rubbish on the road near my place as would cost the Board £10 to remove.—l am, &c., Axdeew G-oldie.

THE LATE ANNUAL MEETING- OW THE KARANGAHAPE HIGHWAY DISTRICT.

To the Editor of the Hebald. Sis, —I hope you will favor me with a small space in your valuable paper, and the more particularly so as the ratepayers of the above district almost unanimously condemned the trustees for not announcing the annual meeting in the Herald, as most of them see this paper. The chairman, in answer to numerous questions anent the Newton culvert, made various statements as to how your subscriber acted aB contractor —viz., "by using bad material, and getting all the money he could, viz., £110, and then refusing to go on with the work ; and a3 a proof of the same, he had some of the mortar in his pocket, which was open to the inspection of auy ratepayer that might like to see it." Why, as far as lam concerned, he might as well have filled his pocket with rice-soup, because I never used one farthing's worth of material for JNewton Road culvert, either directly or indirectly ; nor was I ever paid one farthing by the Board, or trustees of the Board ; and if the ratepayers got so much law for £11 6s. 6d., they should think they got it cheap, as it was worth more than double the money.—l am, &c., William Ga lb ruth.

PATttONAGE

To the Editor of tba Herald. Sik, —The announcement of the performance in the Prince of Wales Theatre, for this erening, states that it is under the patronage of the Licensed Victullars, and gives the names of certain gentlemen to act as a committee, with the addition of Esquire to their names. lam justified in sajing that this was done without the cognizance of the Association, and certainly without the cognizance of several of the gentlemen whose names appear in the hand-bill. If it be necessary, in order to draw good houses at the Prince of Wales Theatre, that the performance should nightly be under patronage, it would, I think, be much more graceful and satisfactory if the parties intended as patrons were consulted before having their Damn emblazoned about the town. I enclose my card.—l am, <fcc., Licenced Victullab (not Esquire). July 2G, 1871.