SPEDDING v. TAPPER,

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11684, 17 March 1900, Page 4

SPEDDING v. TAPPER,

TO THE EDITOR. Sin,—l would crave the indulgence of a short reply to Mr Spedding's letter in this morning's issue. Messrs Speckling may not have experienced such' a favour, but it is not unusual for boudkeepers to occasionally, without production of warrant, give delivery of i goods to customers whom they can thorough--I ly trust, upon the said customers explaining they had misplaced warrants and giving letter of indemnification or other security. The following is a copy of the receipt of the two j cases:—" Received two c/s ale 1220, March i 4/99. No waraut produced, but to be written off warrant later' on.—A.. M. Byrne." i Mr .Byrne could have no object in stating ! anything but -Ifacts' when he said he had writ- j ten and spoken, to Mr Spedding before the! case was talora to court, informing him that | the two cases had besn delivered. Mr I Ijyrne's letter was dated and delivered to '• -Messrs Spedding. on March 2. and the sum- ! moss was taken but on March 5. j AH the other statements made by Mr Sped- ! ding in court could be as easily refuted, but what is the u?e? The people of Otago who ; know Messrs Spedding and myself are able to ! judge between us. Therefore this closes' the ! correspondence as far as I am concerned.—l ! am etc. A. Tappeh. ; 1 ->S.—Our three other lines of defence were not gene into when the ease was thrown out. j