Original Correspondence.

Taranaki Herald, Volume VIII, Issue 395, 25 February 1860, Page 3

Original Correspondence.

•»* Our concspondence columns being open impartially to all, we are not to be identified with any opinions expressed theiein.

To the Editor of the taranaki herald.

Sir,— "How long has it happened that a man's oath may not be taken as Bufficieiit evidence before a bench of magistrates, and to what extent is an auctioneer licensed to misrepresent, in older to enhance in the eyes of an audience an aiticle which he may be selling by auction ? " Smarting as I am under what appears to me an act of injustice, I wish through the medium of your paper to make known to the public the particulars of a case tried in the Resident Magistiate's Court on Thuisday last, so that the public may profit by my experience, and know to what they have to trusi when buying at auctions. Some time since a bagatelle board was offeied by Mr. Gledhill for public competition in his auction room, when he stated that a set ot new balls had been ordeii'd by the vendor of the board tlnough Captain Dixon of the Kate Kearney, and would in all probability be brought by him on his next amval, and, if brought, would be delivered to the purchaser of the board, free of cost. Captain Dixon arrived and denied having received any older for the balls, if he had, he should have brought them. A complaint was thereupon made to Mr. Gledhill, who was asked to give an older to Captain Dixon for them, and that if ho would not, I should older them myself, and expect the cost of them to be deducted fiom the price of the bnaul. Mr. Gledhill professed to be much surprised that Capt. Dixon had not received an order for the balls, but declined ordei ing them. The balls were, therefore, ordered by myself from Capt. Dixon and obtained. In due time Mr. Gledhill applied for payment for the board, whereupon I offered to pay him if ho would deduct Ihe price of the balls which I had bought from Captain Dixon, he leluswl to do so, and, consequently, the case was taken into the Court ol lequests and I iefused to pay the full .amount on account of the boaid having -bicn sold under false representations. I pioved by abundant evidence the loienamed conditions of sale, and Capt.

Dixon's denial of having received a.iy order for bagatelle balls fiom Mr. T. Lethbiidge the vendor of the board. The magistrate mled that in the absence of Captain Diton it could not be pioved that it had been sold under false lepieseulations. I asked him if the oath's of two witnesses and the admission of the auctioneer weie not .sufficient pioof that the balls had not been oiderod tlnough Capt. Dixon, his answer was in the negative : I then asked for a deferment of the case until Captain Dixon's arrival, whereupon the magistrate told me it could be of no service, foi even Captain Di\ou's evidence of not having leceived the order fiom Mr. Lethbridge would not be sufficient pioof that he had not leceived it, and that it was usual foi auctioneers to say many things respecting articles which they had for 6ale in ordef to induce the company piesent to bid for them, which are not strictly true nor expected to be so. Now, Sir, we will allow that an auctioneer is justified in passing encomiums although not strictly true upon an aiticle which the purchaser sees and of which he himself may judge, but I don't consi. der that an auctioneer would be justified when sell, ing a cow to state that a calf belonged to her in an adjoining paddock, winch should be taken by the purchaser of the cow, if it were not siiictly true, and why the testimony of Captain Dixou should be set at nought, I cannot uideistand. But allowing that Captain Dixon did receive an ordtr for the balls from Mr. Lethbridge and forgot it, would it have been anything more than just lor the auctioned

to have then given him an order for them at my re-

quest, he well knows he should have done so, but - a mistaken sense of duty towards his employeis has, in this instance, ovcnuled his love of justice. ErHM. Coad.

New Plymouth, 17th February, 18G0.

To the Editor of the takanaki herald,

Sii, — As the abandonment of the piojeet for erecting a blockhouse/and other defences at Lower Mangorei leflects on the courage and prudence of the settlers of that distict, we, the undeisigned, hereby put on publi: lecoid our emphatic piotest against these proceedings. We believe such policy to be humiliating and disastrous in its moral effects on the natives, ruinous to the settlers themselves, and most mischievous strategically consideied. We are necessitated in justice to ourselves to state that it is only by the withdrawal of the proffered assistance of the majority of our fellow-settlers in that district, that we have been lehictantly compelled to act as they have done. We wish it to be distinctly understood that should assistance be rendered, we are now ready, even at the eleventh hour, to defend our property, and to assist in maintaining the authority of her Majesty the Queen. (Signed) William Dcvenish, Benjamin Wells, Richard Wm. Carr, Zacciieus Wji. Wells, Hdnuy Turner, Henry Collins, Joseph Caddy. Lower Mangorei, 23id Februaiy, 18C0.