MR HINE AND THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES.

Otago Witness, Issue 2947, 7 September 1910, Page 14

MR HINE AND THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES.

ALLEGATIONS REGARDING A LETTER. WAS IT A FORGERY? (Fp.r-.u Our Own Correspondent ) WELLINGTON, August 31. Recentij" i«i the House of Representatives Mr J. C. Mine made a statement to the effect that in Taranaki applicants had been refused admission to land ballots because they were not in possession of £3OO. Following this a letter denying the truth of the statement appeared m the New Zealand Times over the "signature "Joseph M'Clnggage." The letter was dated Stratford, August 23. In the same issue of the paper a letter bearing the same place and date was published over the signature " Edward Fincham." The writer of the latter epistle said he understood that Mr Hine had used his name as being one of the persons who applied for land ** the Huianga special settlement. Tlie writer concluded : " I wish to say. for myself and friends, that we never applied for land, and Mr Hine has no authority in using my name." Mr Hine naturally wa.s very much astonished to see such a letter reflecting on his character published over Mr Fincham"s name. Two days later the mystery deepened when (on August 27) Mr Hine received thp following tele|7ram from Stratford:—''No knowledge of letter in Times with my signature.—Fincham." To-night Mr Hine is in receipt of a letter from Mr Fincham. In this letter the latter savs he was astonished on his arrival in Stratford on the Saturday to hear that a fetter over his signature had appeared in the New Zealand Times. He could not credit it until he had seen the letter for himself. He adds: "I could

quite understand your feelings on the (matter and probably your doubts of myself for. leaving friendship out of the question, it is not the act of a man to publish a gross lie, or rather part of a lie, because part of the letter is true that states that I never applied for land. However, it is a dirty business, and I should like to find out the -author of it, for I can assure you I can solemnly swear before my Gcd that I know nothing whatever about the letter that appeared in the Times on tha 25th, nor to my knowledge have I signed any paper or document that could be fixed up into a letter."' The question now arises, Was the letter published in the New Zealand Times a forgery, and, if so, who is the forger? More is likelv to be heard of the matter.