CORRESPONDENCE

Thames Advertiser, Volume XXII, Issue 6348, 22 June 1889, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE

Our correspondents are free ana we do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinion thiy express. Letters must invariably be accompanied by the name and address of the writers, not for publication but for verification. (We do sot undertake to return unused manuscript,) fTo the Editor.) EAYERS v. WILLIAMS. Sir.—As you have wisely determined not to insert any more anonymous letters res* pecting the above caße, I desire to state calmly and deliberately why Mr Douglas and I acquitted Mrs Williams of the charges laid against her, please to bear in mind that an abbreviated newspaper report carries with it a very different complexion to that heard in court after a deliberate inquirj extending over two hours and a halt. The charges; Unlawfully assault by kicking on the thighs and stomach and scratch ikg on the neck with a knife, and striking on ths back with a broom handle. Suffice to say now that we did not believo the girl, she wa= proved to be obstinate, disobedient, ani untruthful, even in the witness box, this appeared That she was punished there can be, no doubt, perhaps e. little too severely but as Dr Williams said nothing in any wuy to injuro her health. I would say why punish anyone if you do not make the punishment felt. In this case there was much reason to doubt the correctness of the girls statements. Mrs Williams upon oath denied the charges of brutality etc, and we gave her the benefit of the doubt,—l am etc, Charl* Haielden. [\Ve publish tho above letter to satisfy Mr Haselden, it is just as illogical as his decision. Surely the girl's body was sufficient evidence to convict, in the absence, of any other theory, as to how the bruiser urose,-ED,T.A.]