The Observer.

Observer, Volume 2, Issue 50, 27 August 1881, Page 576

The Observer.

Saturday, August 27th, 1881

Some foolish dunderheads, ■who imagine they can see further through a brick -wall than most men, have ljeen putting two-and-two together, and come to the conclusion that the letter about the .Southern police in last issue was an underhand slap at the heads of the local Constabulary. We beg to emphatically contradict the absurd statement, though it is almost an insult to Superintendent Thomson and Mr Paruv to notice such slanderous rumours at all. Those who know the two "bosses" of the police must be well aware that the honour of the force is as dear to them as their own, and that they are the last men to disgrace it by boozing in public-houses or consorting with inferiors. We may as well say at once that had we believed the allegations in "Licensed Victualler's " letter to refer to Messrs Thomson .and P.irdy, and to be true, we should have carefully enquired into them and spoken out boldly. It would be a nice thing if the safety of the community were in the hands of a Superintendent who drank. Some folks say, "So long as an officer is all right en duty, what does it matter." Well, we think it matters very much. For one thing, the head of the police is the person who prosecutes drunkards and secures their punishment, and what becomes of " sacred justice " if the prosecutor is as bad as the prosecuted ? AYe are, however, quite convinced that " Licensed Victualler's " letter was not a slanderous attempt io damage the local police. The writer gives the proper nomenclature to the town where the mischief is said to have occurred, and also the names of the inspector and subinspector, which we have since ascertained to be correct. Under these circumstances it would be absurd to suspect any double meaning.

For ourselves, we can honestly aver that we have never seen or heard of any conduct either on the part of Superintendent Thomson or Mr Pardy calling for criticism or condemnation. They Loth bear the highest reputation, not only for strict attention to duty, but for propriety of demeanour at all times. Inspector Pardy especially is a model of sobriety and decorum, in fact we doubt if there is a much staider police officer in New Zealand. What a pity, by-the-way, that the Law Practitioners Bill didn't pass. Had it done so Pardy would have become one of the most successful criminal lawyers in the Colony. His knowledge of the N.Z. statutes is surprising.

More about Mr Cadger Castleton Cox. It will be remembered that when this estimable gentleman was last heard of he had been trying to exercise his profession (cadging) on Charlie McMurdo at Warkworth. The attempt

failed, and Cox disappeared in the direction of Port Albert. Well, we now learn that he came to a full stop at this thriving settlement, and by dint of piteous entreaties and judicious lying, obtained .a billet as woodcutter to a farmer named W., who in return for hard work, presented him with what is vulgarly known as "his tucker." /> Avay from drink, and obliged to exercise his muscles pretty freely, Cox for some time lived a steady and respectable life. Of course he cadged a bit ; in fact he wouldn't have been himself if lie hadn't managed to eke out of his employer a few pounds to buy boots, shirts, tobacco, and other necessaries at an adjacent store. In the evening Castlcton regaled the W. family with stories of his former greatness and of the aristocratic character of his relations, from whom it may be mentioned he declared he would shortly receive a draft for £200. Well, time passed, and by-and-bye the English mail came in. Cox received a letter, and in it, to Farmer W.s astonishment, was the draft for £200. He didn't absolutely see the bill, but Cox showed him the bit of paper with it on, and at the same time borrowed a trifle more money to take him to town. W. didn't expect to see his money back, and said so ; but Cox, with much virtuous indignation, asked whether he thought he would be such a beastas to cheat his benefactor. " I may," lie said in an agitated A'oice, "have fallen low, but not, no not so low as that."

Well, Cox went away, and of course Mr W. saw neither him nor his money any more. The other day the farmer came to town, and, thinking that Cox could hardly have spent his £200 yet, endeavoured to find him out and get the loan back. Amongst others he came to us to inquire about the cadger, and after some talk we advised him to go to the Bank of New Zealand (on which the fellow said his draft was drawn), and find out when he cashed it. Mr W. did so, and discovered that a few days after leaving Port Albert Mr Castleton Cox had been in and cashed a draft, but, instead of being for £200, it was for five pounds. We publish this story because Cox is still in the neighbourhood of Auckland, and very likely at the present moment victimising somebody. He is evidently a man without a particle of honour, gratitude or good feeling, and does not deserve assistance.

A shocking story of heartless inhumanity comes from New Plymouth. About a fortnight ago a young girl but little over fourteen years of age walked into town, bringing with her a trifling mistake in the shape of an inopportune and highly improper baby. She arrived late at night, and had no friends to visit. A Good Samaritan, noticing her forlorn condition, took pity on the miserable girl and endeavoured to procure her lodgement for the night. But do you think any of the good people of NeAv Plymouth would allow this stricken wayfarer to sleep beneath their virtuous roofs. Certainly not, certainly not. They cried "Shame" on the Good Samaritan for bringing her to them ; and but for Miss Brooks (barmaid at the Criterion Hotel) my gentleman and his charge would have been in a fix. This excellent person showed the poor creature great kindness, gave her some money, and finally procured her a comfortable bed. In the morning the baby was found dead, and a Coroner's jury, after enquiring into the matter, returned a verdict to the effect " That the child died from siiffocation, caused by the mother wrapping her shawl too tightly round it to protect it from the cold,"

The initiation of an amateur dramatic club on a first-class footing is a step in the right direction, and will enable young men who fancy themselves histrions to occupy their evenings rather more profitably than by boozing in a publichouse or gambling over a billiard table. The great feature of the new club is to be the appearance of lady amateurs, whom it is fondly hoped an imposing array of patrons and sundry fashionable audiences may draw from retirement. The club have taken a daring — a very daring step in selecting the long and difficult comedy of "London Assurance" for their opening piece. We sincerely hope it may be a success, but unless they rehearse it for several weeks with the greatest care there will undoubtedly be a fiasco.

The high-handed action of the Acclimatisation Society, in determining (without any reference to the public) to sell their beautifiil gardens in the Domain, has caused universal dissatisfaction. Because the Society is now composed mainly of sporting men who care for nothing save the introduction of pin-tail groxise and similar luxuries, it is no reason that the people of Auckland should he deprived of a valuable and irreplaceable property. Those gardens are filled with plants and flowers from

all parts of the world. Gentlemen have made presentations to them which they would never have made had they known they would have been sold ; in fact, we doubt whether the sale will be legal. If the Society are short of funds let them appeal to the public, giving a guarantee at the same time that the money will not be squandered on game, birds, and other pests, but laid out in the introduction of suitable trees, flowers, vegetables, etc. The Acclimatisation Society was not founded for the benefit of a few shooting men, but for the people of Auckland generally, and the sooner this is understood the better. One of their rules says plants may only be sold to members ; how then can the entire gardens be legally disposed of ?

Whilst heartily congratulating Mr Dunn on the eminently satisfactory outcome of the Presbytery enquiry, we cannot forbear pointing out that he has only himself to thanK for nnich of the scandal and ill-natured gossip which has been circulated. It is evident enough from the ease -with which the charge appears to have been disproved on Thursday last that had the rev. gentleman grappled with'it immediately the girl told her story, and demanded a searching investigation into its details, he would have saved both himself and his friends an infinity of suffering and vexation. Thinking over the matter carefully, we cannot see that, as conscientious journalists, we could have acted in any other way than we did. Mr Dunn, who is, his friends tell us, an exceptionally earnest man, will probably agree that no mercy ought to be shown to a clergyman who abuses his trust. . Well, at the time our reporter published the story of the " Clerical Gay Lothario " there seemed to be no question that Mr Dunn had very grossly abused his sacred office. A neighbour of Mrs Doull's first brought the matter under our notice, and of course we pooh-poohed it. The man was, however, so earnest, and laid such stress on the friendless condition and great respectability of the unfortunate girl, that at length we began to think there must be something in it, and sent our manager (Mr Pulford) to make searching enquiries into the case and see everyone who knew anything about it. Well, Mr Pulford did so, examining not only the persons who subsequently appeared before the Presbytery, but a lady of unimpeachable veracity and respectability. This person spoke favourably of Lizzie Doull's character, and altogether one story fitted in with another soaccurately that it seemed out of the question there could be any mistake. Subsequently, of course, when friends of Mr Dunn's gave its' their view of the case, we began to fear an injustice have been done him and advocated to the best of our ability an immediate enquiry into the circumstances. This has resulted most satisfactorily and (to end where we began) only shows how imperatively necessary it is for innocent men to meet painful scandals boldly, and, by scotching them at their birth, to render them harmless and inoffensive.

Mr Harry Hastings sends us from New Plymouth a long account of a very extraordinary gambling transaction, which it is alleged took place at the Criterion Hotel there one night abovtt two months ago. The affair commenced with a game of poker, in which several gentlemen, including a Mr William Humphries, took part. This little "flutter" went on till 1.30 a.m., when a disturbance about money matters arose, and the game was prematurely broken up Mr Humphries then (Mr Hastings alleges) asked him to have a turn at cutting cards for £1 per trick. He consented, and the pair set to Avork. At first Humphries won £9 or £10 from Hastings, but after a time things took a turn, and Hastings got his money back and a little more also. Humphries then proposed increasing the stakes to £5 a trick, and, Hastings assenting to this, they again went on playing. The game now fluctuated considerably. At one time Hastings had secured as much as £236, but after some hours play his winnings came down to £51. The morning was now far advanced, and Hastings wanted to stop ; but Humphries declined to let him, and they Avent on gambling till 10 a.m., at which time Humphries owed Hastings £211. The pair then got up, and Humphries, before several gentlemen (who were present during the

whole night), asked his opponent to call round at the office and he would pay him. He also made the same remark to a person from whom he had borrowed £35 to play poker with. This gentleman was duly paid, but on Hastings, after several days' interval, calling at the Messrs Humphries' office for his money, Mr William coolly repudiated the, debt, saying he was drunk when he contracted it. Now Mr Hastings solemnly declares the man was perfectly sober, and so do the other gentlemen who- were present ; in fact it can, the (company declare) be proved that the only drinks called for during the game were one rum and milk and one cup of coffee apiece, for which and the use of the room the landlord received £3 from Mr Hastings.

Several applications for the £211 were made by Hastings? to Humphries, who, however, steadily ignored the whole transaction. Mr Hastings then took counsel Avith several other gentlemen (to whom he alleges, that Humphries owes gambling debts) and they advised him to sue that worthy in order to expose him. Hastings knew, of course, that being a gambling transaction, the affair must result in a non-suit, and this is, in fact, what happened. Moreover, Mr Hastings didn't even get the satisfaction of having the case published in the local prints, for the Humph ries being notable people in New Plymouth, it was dismissed — Hastings v. Humphries.— Claim £100, being a debt of honour.— Mr Samuel appeared for the defendant, the plaintiff appearing in person. Mr Samuel objected tbat the particulars of demand did not disclose a valid cause of action. The plaintiff was non-suited, with costs.

The above, of course, is only the plaintiff's story of the transaction, and until avo hear the defendant's it would be unfair to say too much. Presuming, however, that Mr Hastings has been careful to stick strictly to facts, there can be no doubt that he lias been very badly treated. The excuse of inebriety is not now tolerated amongst gentlemen (even when it is true, which it doesn't appear to have been in this case) as an excuse for ignoring gambling debts. If a man is sober enough to he is sober enough to lose also, and it is plain enough from Mr Hastings' narrative that when Humpries, after losing £236, had reduced his losses to £51, and thought he was in for a run of luck, he had sense enough to insist on going on. We remember a case of the kind occurring at the Arlington Club in London about two years ago. Four gentlemen dined there together and had a rubber of whist afterwards. Subsequently, two of them, whom we will call Colonel A. and Mr B. sat down to ecartc and played for several hours, B. losing £3000 odd. When called upon to pay B refused and pleaded inebriety. There was an awful row, and an enquiry into the affair at the club took place. Amongst other things it was proved that at dinner the four gentlemen had only consumed a pint of sherry, two bottles of champagne, and a bottle of claret, and that, during the whole night, B. had had only two brandies and sodas. This, and the evidence of onlookers, clinched matters, and B. was offered the alternative of paying or being expelled from the club. He solved the matter by taking his name off the Club's books and was at once " cut" by society. There can be no doubt that here, as in England, many unprincipled gamblers play on "the heads Twin, tails you lose " principle. They come tothe table without money, borrow a little to begin with, and trust to liquidating the loan with their winnings. If they do win all is right, but if they don't someone suffers. We hate your jolly good fellow who sits down with a "By Gad, I've left my purse at home, who'll lend me a ' quid ' to begin with." He's generally an out-and-out rascal who owes money all over the shop.

Missionaries are often called upon to decide very knotty questions — matrimonial and otherwise. .Rev. W. Gittos, of Kaipara, can tell a little story illustrative of this. One of his flock (a Maori chief) had one wife, but wanted another. He had cast his eyes on a dusky damsel of a neighbouring tribe, who returned all his love and half his glances ; for she was blessed with but one visual organ. The Kaipara natives, be it noted (especially those of Otamatea, where this chief resides), are exceedingly pious ; and they were _ greatly troubled when their chief announced his intention of espousing another wife. They hurled passage after passage of Scripture at him, but he was more than a match for them at that.

" The Bible," he urges, says : " Whoso getteth a wife, getteth a good thing. " Therefore whoso getteth two wives, getteth two good things. Solomon had a thousand wives and concubines. He was not more than five hundred times as good as I am, consequently I am entitled to at least two. Then the New Testament says : "If thine eye be single, then is thine whole body full of light." My beloved's eye is single, therefore she will be the joy of my life, and the light of my home. The dispute waxed warm. At last Mr Gittos was appointed arbitrator, and all parties agreed to abide by his decision. He didn't say much, but, placing the woman on his horse before him, he took her back to her tribe, and nothing more was heard about the matter.

Have any of our readers taken the trouble to peruse the report of the Parliamentary Committee appointed for the purpose of "investigating into pensions," or in other words for enquiring into the legality or illegality of the pensions granted to' Sir William Fitzherberfc, Mr Gisborne, Mr Domett, and Dr Pollen? As they may not have waded through the report, we have taken the trouble to boil it clown, and beg here to place the essence of the matter before them. The report says, in the case of Sir Win. Fitzherbert, it was necessary (1) that he should have obtained the full age of sixty years at the date of his resignation, and (2) that he should have been fifteen years in the Civil Service of New Zealand. With regard to the first, the report affirms that Mr Fitzherbert was not sixty years of age when he tendered his resignation. With regard to the second, the report affirms "that it is evident the entire service of Sir Win. Fitzherbert does not exceed thirteen years." So much for Fitzherbert's pension. Now touching Mr Gisborne. The report affirms that Mr Gisborne claimed his pension under the Civil Service Act 1866, but at the time of claiming his pension he was not holding any office that he held in 1866, and was therefore not entitled to claim under it even if he had not been deemed to have ipse facto vacated all subordinate offices by the acceptance of the political office of Colonial Secretary in 1860. So much for Gisborne. Dr Pollen's pension was reported on previously, it also was proved to be illegal. Now it is just as well to look the matter fairly and squarely in the face, there is no use attempting to burke it. The fact of these gentlemen having held, and are still holding, high and important positions in the Colony, is really an aggravation rather than a matter for sentimental condonation of their crime, for crime it undoubtedly is. Sir Wm. Fitzherbert knew, and those who granted him. his pension knew full well that they were perpetrating a fraud when the pension was granted. Mr Gisborne's case is equally clear, as also is Dr Pollen's. Now let us see what steps the Parliamentary Committee recommend should be taken under the circumstances. The circumstances, let it be remembered, being that these three gentlemen have illegally obtained pensions, and have drawn large sums out of the public purse to which they were in no way entitled. Here is the recommendation: "In submitting to the House the accompanying papers, and the foregoing summary of facts in. the respective cases referred to, the Committee expresses its opinion that although there has been irregularity in the granting of these pensions to Sir W. Fitzherbert, and the Hon. Mr Gisborne, and the Hon. Dr Pollen, the Committee does not consider that the circumstances of the sevei-al cases are such .as would render it advisable to repudiate liabilities based on the Governor's warrants, and therefore recommends that all doubts as to illegality of these pensions should be removed by a special Act." These gentlemen are not, therefore, to be called upon to refund the various amounts they have illegally obtained, nor are they to be proceeded against in a court of law for making false claims on the Colony and fraudulently obtaining possession of money to which they were not entitled. But a special act is to be brought in for the purpose of making clean that which is at present very foul, and for granting each of these gentlemen, for the rest of their natural lives, a comfortable pension out of the pockets of the heavily taxed ratepayers of this unfortunate Colony.

Poor Sir George Grey is considerably misrepresented in the matter of the recent Land League meeting at Wellington. A friend of ours who hails from a country district where post and telegraph offices are unknown was dining Avith us recently, when he remarked, "Oh, I say, tell iis what are these extraordinary doings of Sir George Grey, in Wellington ; it is reported in my district that Sir George Grey called a meeting in Wellington to sympathise with the Fenian movement in. Ireland, and that in the course of his speech he referred in glowing language to the fact of so many landlords haying been shot, and prayed that very shortly there wouldn't be one left." We hastened to assure our friend that report had evidently credited the great Pro-consul with the speech delivered by that other grea,t man, Mr John Lundon. There can, however, be no doubt this serves Sir George right for being so foolish as to mix in such extremely questionable company, for it is not likely that the public will attempt to discriminate between what Sir George means and what his "friends' say.

It Avas just fourteen years ago the last day of last month since the Thames goldfield was first thrown open, and a few facts concerning the celebrated Hunt's claim— the first rich mine at the Thames— may not prove uninteresting at the present moment. It will he remembered that the first foothold of the pioneers was a block of ground extending only from the Hape to the Karaka creeks, and in this circumscribed area the hardy miners commenced sinking for alluvial deposits, having no idea of the existence of quartz. One of the sinkers was a man named Clarkson, who, like the rest, pursued his quest for the precious metal without sue cess. So poor was he that he slept in the fern and existed on dry bread. At last, thoroughly disheartened, he had packed up his few belongings and was walking down to the steamer-

landing to endeavour to beg a passage to Auckland, Avhen an old friend met him and induced him to stay, assisting him pecuniarily. When the next block was thrown open — between the Kuranui and Karaka creeks — Clarkson, who had fallen in with Hunt and White, determined to prospect the recently-acquired area. They proceeded up the wooded Kuranui Gully, down which a little streamlet trickled in a succession of beautiful miniature cascades. White was ahead, Clarkson and Hunt behind. Clarkson casually struck the hard water-worn rock which formed a waterfall, Avhen a glittering splinter of quartz flew off. On picking it up it was found to be studded with gold. A few more blows with the pick disclosed to the overjoyed prospectors that the patch was of considerable dimensions. White was called, and when the greatness of the discovery burst upon them, he laid down and laughed and lacked like a madman. Cobley joined the party three days after the discovery, being a friend . of Hunt's. The subsequent history is pretty well known. Clarkson, White, and Cobley made about £30,000 a man, and Hunt somewhat more, he having speculated luckily. A very pretty little story lias come to light in connection with the Pollard gang. About a fortnight ago a gentleman who was rather intimate Avith the troupe, asked one of the children — a little girl named Maria Wallen— a question connected with the management. She kneAV nothing about the matter, and said so. Well, a short time afterwards there Avas a paragraph in the Observer on the same subject, and little Maria seeing it, remarked thoughtlessly, "Oh ! yes; Mr So-and-so asked me about that." On this the Pollard elders set upon the poor child and abused her like a pickpocket for telling tales. It Avas in vain she said she had told nothing ; in vain she declared she didn't knoAV anything about the matter. They punished the girl with scolding, and made her cry very bitterly. Well, this lamentable consequence of his "pumping" reached So-and-So, and feeling very sorry that his curiosity should have got Maria into trouble, he bought the child a trinket and enclosed it in a case with a card, on which was written — "Dear Maria : I hear a question of mine got you into trouble. Pray r orgivc vie, and accept this little present with my love and best wishes. — Yours, So-and-So." Meeting one of the Pinafore boys (Come Osmond) whom he believed to be honorable, So-and-So gave the parcel to him and asked him to convey it to Maria, which he said he would. Judge of So-and-So's indignation and surprise when he learnt quite accidentally, some days afterwards that Osmond had sneakingly given the parcel to old Pollard, who had kept it, without either mentioning the matter to the child or communicating with liim. Wedon'tthinkweeverin our lives before heard of such procedure on the part of an honest man. It is of course within Mr Pollard's powers to forbid the youngsters to receive presents, though after openly encouraging the public to make them to his own children, it seems a trifle strange. He has, however, no sort of right to pocket a gift sent to a little girl under his care and keep it without acquainting either donor or recipient of the fact. There is a very ugly name for proceedings of this description, and we are very far from blaming So-and-So if he applies it to the transaction. Mr Pollard had better take care. First of all he sailed uncommonly near the. wind in trying to diddle some chorus boys of their salaries ; then came that "bogus" benefit, which was an exceedingly shady bit of business ; and finally the scene in" the R. M. Court the other day didn't add to his reputation. Honorable men will be giving him the cold shoulder by-and-bye, and the children's names will suffer through being associated with his. . -«. Since penning the above we have learnt that Mr So-and-so wrote an indignant letter to Mr Pollard, demanding that his present should either be returned or given to Maria Wallen, and on this, thinking descretion the better part of valour, old P. passed it on to the child. . ♦_ Mr EdAvin Binney is evidently a novice in the art of strategy, if one might judge from the published reports of the Court case Bell v. Binney. It would appear that the astute and amiable defendant, for certain reasons of his own, and "divers considerations him thereinto moving," desired to vacate certain premises which he had leased from the plaintiff. The latter fell back on the grand old heroic motto of "No surrender," the lease bein» for tAvelve months. Upon his refusal to comply, the defendant forthwith proceeds to put into operation some most unique, though ineffectual methods, to force compliance. As, for instance, organizing a "larrikin" skating rink, with certain accompaniments not usually introduced by rinking clubs. Also, calling into exercise the flexor and extensor muscles of his arms, by mashing oats Avith a 3x4 scantling. These proceedings, although not by any means pleasant or agreeable to the plaintiffs or his clerks, were nevertheless barren of results so far as the tenant Avas concerned. They did not eventuate in what he Avanted — namely, a "notice to quit. Then he essayed to give the "coupde grace" by severing the haulyards of Mr Bell's flagstaff — a most (naughty)cal proceeding. Noaa', one ot those things which "no fellah can understand " is, why Mr Binney should have so completely played into the enemy's hands. There are many other courses open to him, without laying himself open to an action at law. He might, on the plea of being an enthusiastic apiarian, have introduced a few "swarms of bees, and let them rove around at their oavh SAveet aa'HI — or liaA r e engaged the A.A. to warble divers ditties — or a feAv welldeveloped frogs from Mount Eden lagoon (which would amount to the same thing) — or, he might have enlisted the services of the garrulous and grimy Garrard for a week or so, to orate on the upper floor. Any one of these devices would have been correct and proper, and strictly within the limits of the law, and tenant-right. They are herewith offered for the defendant's acceptance, should he feel disposed, to utilize them on the next occasion.

When the Surrey Hills Estate Avas offered to the city for the sum of £100,000 we referred to the fact that the property was originally secured by its present OAV-ner for a comparatively small price. This statement has since been contradicted, and it has been asserted that £60,000 was paid for the estate. A correspondent, who asserts that he is perfectly well acquainted with all the circumstances, informs us that the land AA-as purchased by Mr Jas. Williamson and his partner, the late Mr Crummer, for £1 Is per acre, and that some years ago, in the settlement of affairs betAveeii Mr Williamson and the heirs of Mr Crummer, the former paid £15,000 for the property. We do not vouch for these statements, but our authority is a credible one. ♦ Honour to Avhom honour is due. There has lately been some controversy as to Avhom credit was 'due for "shepherding" the Exchange of Sites Bill in Parliament, the friends of Mr Swanson and Mr Speight putting forth rival claims on behalf of their respective champion. We have, hoAvever, seen telegrams Avhich passed betAveeii Mr Swanson and Mr Williams, chemist, Queen-street, Avhich appear to set the question at rest. On the 21st June Mr SAvanson telegraphed that the bill Avas allright in the House of Representatives, and that lie would Avatch it in the other House. On the 19th July he attain wired that the City Hall Bill might stickpin the Upper Houte, through neglect outside, but he thought it might be got through. On the following day he informed Mr Williams that the progress of* the bill Avas interrupted by Mr Ormond's No-confidence motion. On the 21st Mr Speight Avired emphatically contradicting the report that the bill Avas being neglected, and on the Ist August this Avas follaAvcd by another message from Mr SAvauson, stating that he was assured that the measure would pass. It Avould thus appear that though Mr Speight did Avatch the bill, the member for NeAvton Avas the main instrument of its successful passing.