Original Correspondence.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVII, Issue 1803, 11 December 1862, Page 2

Original Correspondence.

Our columns being impartially open, We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents.No notice can he taken of anonymous communications. Correspondents must theifore furnish their name and address, not necessarily for- publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. To the Editor of the Wellington Independent. Sir, — Having heard a discussion on the merits of various picotees, I am desirous of knowing the difference between carnation and pinks, and also the standard of merit. If you, or any of your correspondents could inform me, j'ou would much oblige, Your*s &c, W. M. L. To the Editor of the Wellington Indepehuent. Sib, — In reading your paper of this morning, I saw a paragraph headed. Supreme Court Buildings, iv which a correspondent, professing to be learned in building, complains " that the mortar used is rotten, has no cohesion, and, in plain English, won't stick." Sir, Mr Gell being a new government contractor, I have, being close at hand; careiully examined the work as it has gone on ; and having in myftime used as much mortar as most men, I hereby affirm, that both mortar, timber, and other -material, used in the construction of the CourtTiouae, are quite equal to any used in any public building, in Wellington. Sir, in my opinion, the person who could make such an allegation in a public paper, to the injury 'of any workman, would most likely be the same as used the iron bar to extract the coins placed under the corner stone. Perhaps that is how he obtained his experience. I hope, Mr Editor, in justice to the Builder, you will make this publio in your next issue, with my name attached, which, in this case. I am not ashamed to see in print. Your's truly, John Plimmer. ~ Wellington, December 9, 1862.