DITCHED.
Our morning contemporary makes a very lame attempt to uphold its erroneous statements re the loan made* by the Advances to Settlers Department on a certain Waitotara property. It now asks its readers fq suspend judgment until the matter has been dealt with, by a, Royal Commission, which latter seems to be a favourite resource with the opponents of the present Government when proved to haTe made unfounded charges. This is of a piece with the practice of some lawyers, who go into court without having
lead their briefs, and who trust to badgering then' opponents' witnesses to get enough admissions to win the case. Our contemporary says the transaction was pointedly characterised by the borrower's solicitor as " a barefaced swindle." In reference to this we would merely ask how came it that, in the face of such a statement, the solicitor in question was a party to the transaction after having characterised it by such a term ? Must a Royal Commission sit to determine our contempoiary'u reply to thi3 natuial question ?
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WH18980328.2.8
Bibliographic details
Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9399, 28 March 1898, Page 2
Word Count
173DITCHED. Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9399, 28 March 1898, Page 2
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.