SMITH V. GREEN.

Timaru Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 6064, 25 September 1894, Page 3

SMITH V. GREEN.

TO THB EDITOR OF THE TIMAEU HERALD. Bib,—The letters of Mr Hasesll and Mesirs Gray and Grandi appearing ia your issue, of Saturday, contain such extraordinary statements (or rather misstatements) that I am sure you will allow me space for a reply. I need not refer to Mr Hassell's letter further than to say, that he is dependent for his facts solely upon information derived from Messrs Gray and Grandi, and therefore any statement of facts made by him oannot per se oarry any waight. As Mr i Solomon appears to have made the statement referred to m my previous letter, upon the strength of Mr Grandi's statement of fact*, I freely aoquit him of all mala fides m the matter. lam sorry, however, to say that 1 oannot bo acquit. Messrs Gray and Grandi. Prior to obtaining their signatures to the. momo attached to my letter of the 20th inst 1 put this question to eaoh of them " Did Mr Solomon make the statement reported m the Herald on the strength of any information supplied by you ?" Both Mr Gray and Mr Grandi answered m the negative, a.nd signed the memo, which they now accuse me of makiug an " unfair use " of. I suppose the " unfair ÜBB "of the memo, oonsists m my having mnde it public without previously informing them of my intention to do so, but suoh on aocusatioo oarries with it its own answer. The memo was given to me without any qualification whatover, and surely I had a right under the oiroumstanoes to make it public! Of what use would it have been to me had I not done so ? How Mr Grandi, reconciles the statement given by him to Mr Haesell, with the memo, signed by him and Mr Gray I do not attempt to explain, but leave jour readers to draw their own deductions. It is one of those abstruse conundrums the key of whioh is held only by its author. I ooiild point out several miv statements m Mr Grandi's statement given to Mr Hassell (Bn/i which wej?e evidently m. tended tq be made use of hi evidence by plaintiff's counsel) but content myself with the most glaring one, Mr Grandi states that the printed form was made out m Gray and Lovegrove'a naroesand later on again refers to a "printed form.'' Bow, as a matter of fact, neither a printed form, nor one having a word of print upon it; was shown b; me to Mr Gray or Mr Grandi. Yet, acoording to Mr Hassell's letter, Mr Grandi, as late as Friday last, repeats that his statement is " perfeotly oorreot." All tho documents shown to Messrs Gray and Grandi were legibly written, and can, if neoeßjas-y, be inspected, Now a word_as to Mr Gray's attitude m this matter, which is, if possible, even more inexplipable than that of Mr Grandi. Mr Gray does not even suggest that I made any representations to him concerning Dr Lovegrove's absenoe from or presence m Tiraaru, and yet joins with Mr Grandi m a letter condemning me for having used his denial that such representations were made, to clear myself from a foul and undeserved imputation upon my personal character. Messrs Gray and Grandi conclude their letter by an attempt to shuffle out of tbe position they now find themselves m, under cover of the assertion that •' our statement is merely an admission that tho words quoted do not exaotly deioribe either of the repre. sentations made to ub individually, both of whioh we have reason to believe are false." Did anyone ever hear of such a lame exouse ? Both gentlemen seem to attach muob more importance to their " belief" than to existing facts, and iq I charitably asoribe their oanduot to this circumstance. In ooDclueion, I reaffirm my previous denial of the statements made by MrHolomor, and Mr Wederell who aooompinied ma wnen £ waited upon Meows Gray and Gran^ ca,u oorr«bo»ate this assertion. Had Mr Bol<>m.oa'» statement not appeared m public print I should have treated it with the ooqtempt it deserves, bat under the oiroumstances I could not allow it to pass unoontea* dioted. ' I am, etc, Jko. Malcolmson. Timaru, 22nd Sept., 1894. ,