THE WEEKLY MERCURY. 7
or other evidence recognising his admission, before he can be permanently licensed to any cure in the diocese. I have not the least doubt, from what Archdeacon Wilson has told me, of his having been duly ordained to the priesthood, but the fact of his ordination must be fully established both for his own sake and for the satisfaction of the Church.
The date which I mentioned for the renewal of his license as Curate of St. John’s will allow him ample time for obtaining the required document from the Registry of the diocese where his ordination took place, and he will, I hope, send for it at once.
I must ask you to express to the clergy of Napier, to the church officers of St. John’s, and other members of the Church who signed the memorial requesting a commission of inquiry my thankfulness for the manner in which my Commissary Archdeacon Wilson was received by them; for the consideration given to his suggestions and counsels, and for the aid they afforded in arriving at his conclusion in regard to the questions in dispute. His report will, I am sure, be read by them with much interest, and I look forward with some confidences to the immediate carrying out the plan proposed in 1875 by the late Bishop of Waiapu, namely, the building of a second Church in Napier, and as suggested and so strongly urged by Archdeacon Wilson the forming of an independent Cure in connection with this church.
Believe me to be,
The Ven. Archdeacon of Napier,
It was now more evident than ever that a reply to the memorial had been received, and purposely suppressed. I therefore telegraphed somewhat as follows: – “Primate’s letter received, Archdeacon’s report received. Primate’s recommendations based thereon withheld. Please forward copy by telegraph.” Next morning I received the following telegram: –
Christchurch, Oct. 31, 1876.
Venerable Sir: – I forward the following instructions and recommendations relative to Church matters in the parish of St, John, Napier, and shall be obliged by your giving effect to the same. 1. That the resignation of the Rev. John Townsend, Incumbent of the parish and Church of St. John’s, Napier, be accepted by you and be allowed to take effect at once if his services in the parish and Church of St. John’s can be conveniently supplied, if otherwise, on a day to be fixed by yourself, not exceeding six months from the date of Rev. John Townsend’s note of resignation. 2. That the Rev. Samuel Robinson receive from you at once a license as assistant curate of the parish of St. John’s, Napier, such license to bear date the day of his entrance on the duties of his office, and to hold good until March 31st, 1877, and if he should then desire it to be renewed by you for the period of the engagement, made with him by the Commissary of the late Bishop of Waiapu in England, provided that the Rev. Samuel Robinson exhibit to you on or before the 31st March, 1877, either his letter of admission to the order of priests of a certificate of his admission to that order from the register of the diocese in which his ordination took place. 3. That the board of nominators be informed by you of the Rev. J. Townsend’s resignation of the incumbency of St John’s parish, and of the time when it will take effect, and be at liberty to seek for a successor and that the cure of the parish be declared by you to be vacant at the expiration of the time to be specified by you. 4. That immediate steps be taken for the building of the proposed new church in Napier, and for the division of the parish of St. John’s, and that, if not inconsistent with the provisions of any diocesan regulation for the appointment of pastor, the Rev. Samuel Robinson be instituted by you as incumbent of the new Church and parish in accordance with the expectation held out to him in the Bishop of Waiapu’s letter dated April 5, 1875, on his acceptance of service in the parish of St. John’s.
Given under our hand this 31st day of October, in the year of our Lord, 1876.
(Signed) H.J.C. CHRISTCHURCH.
To the Venerable William Leonard Williams, Archdeacon of Napier, and Commissary of the Primate in the diocese of Waiapu.
I certify that the above is a true copy.
ROBERT J. JACKSON,
Secretary to the Primate.
SIR, – There is nothing so irrational as ignorance, or so unbelieving as prejudice; stupid self assertion becomes matter of fact, and imagination more powerful than your evidence of experience – you “Jemmy Bungs” to wit. He can do a little coopering by hand, and therefore it cannot be done by machine. Coopering, he says, requires precision of eye. Now, Jemmy, I will back my machine against your eye for precision, speed, and economy. I will undertake to cut the staves to suit any size of cask, and they shall not vary the hundredth part of an inch. Can Jemmy do this? If he will call upon me, I will show him there is something beyond his knowledge. I will remove his prejudice by ocular demonstration. I will show him the whole process, and give him an opportunity of testing the product. Now, Jemmy, be a man for once, and cast your prejudice overboard. Give up self- assertion, and don’t imagine that a fib often told becomes the truth. If you go to Melbourne you can see tubs and buckets made by machine; in Napier you can see casks. The principle is the same, the means different. Machinery is not your enemy, the want is increased with the economy of production, and a demand for new forms. Cheapness is one of the laws that governs progress, and the best signs of a country’s prosperity is the use of machinery. Give up your twaddle about firing, you know it’s only an excuse for a bad joint. I can make the joint without a fire, and when I cannot, I will do the same as you and fire them. In the meantime, Mr. Bangs, let me request you to make yourself acquainted with your subject or bung up. Make your casks by hand, exhibit your Scotch monegations to your heart’s content, the world will progress beyond you. – I am, &c.,
[No further correspondence will be inserted on this subject, except paid for as an advertisement. – ED. D.T.]
SIR, – I was present at the entertainment given by the Gymnasium Club last night, and with reference to the programme I wish to say a few words concerning one of the songs that was given “by request”. I have heard this song once before, but nothing will induce me to listen to it again. The song I allude to is entitled “Omaranui.” Some people may be able to compose, and others to listen to and enjoy comic songs, having for their themes the funerals of their respective grandmothers.
To my mind Omaranui presents a picture the reverse of comic. I see a heap of dead bodies of those who had been brave but misguided natives; I see the mournful procession of prisoners – one with a broken jaw, and many painfully wounded – but still bearing a proud mien and firm step, marching to a long imprisonment. I see poor Young, of Meanee, a much respected settler, fall, shot through the chest, never to rise again. I see Morrison, a steady working man, an esteemed husband and father, wirth shattered limb, dying a painful death, and leaving his widow and children to the generosity of the Colony. I see also many of my fellow settlers receive painful wounds, from the effect of which they will never wholly recover. And thus, I ask myself, is all this a proper subject for a comic song? – I am, &c.,
Napier, December 30th, 1876
ST. JOHN’S CHURCH.
SIR, – I have read the letter of “Amicus Curie” in this morning’s Herald most carefully. It is about the best specimen of Jesuitical sophistry that has been penned in these colonies for many years, and can only have emanated, so far as I can judge, from one pen I exceedingly regret that anyone should lower himself in the strain the writer has done, and can assure him that such letters not only prove to the public that his cause is a rotten one, but also those who support it are actuated by motives of jealously, to one whose shoe latchets they are even unworthy to unloose. – I am ,&c.,
January 3, 1876.
THE YOUNG SALMON.
SIR, – I was much interested in reading of the successful propogation of young salmon, but was much disappointed in their distribution, and I ask why was the Tutaekuri, the Mohaka, and the Petane Rivers neglected? The Mohaka is well-known to be well adapted for the salmon being a clear cool and rapid river. The Tutaekuri extending up the Mangaone is a splendid river. The Petane river also, extending to the foot of the Mangaharuru range, with its steep sides of 100 feet, keeping the water always cold, is equally good. Your correspondent “states 19,000 have been turned out, and the whole of them” have been placed in the coldest streams in the province. Now Sir, I deny that any rivers are cooler than the upper portion of the river I have named, and think it most unfair that a portion of the 19,000 has not been more fairly distributed. – I am, &c.,
Meanee, January 4, 1877.
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 29.
(Before Richmond Beetham, Esq., R.M.)
DRUNK AND ASSAULTING POLICE.
James Butcher was charged by Constable Strudwick with the above-named offences; for the first, he was fined 10s, and in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment; and for the assault he was committed to prison for seven days with hard labor.
McGlashan v. Whiteman. Claim £6 15s. Judgment (by default) for amount claimed, and costs 16s.
McGlashan v. Brighouse. Claim £44 6s. Settled out of Court.
Benjamin v. Brighouse. Claim £18 15s. 5d., balance of an account for goods supplied. Judgment for £17 5s. 5d. and costs 19s. Paid forthwith.
Benjamin v. Myhill. Claim £12 1s. 3d. on a promissory note dishonoured, which bore defendants endorsement. Mr.Carlile for defendant. Judgment for the defendant, with costs, &c., amounting to £1 17s.
SATURDAY DECEMBER 30.
John Tracey and Peter Johnson, for the above offence, having been admitted to bail, and failing to appear when called this morning, forfeited the amount deposited, namely, twenty shillings each.
Three informations for assaults had been set down for investigation this morning. The same parties were mixed up more or less in each case, making the whole matter into one, and that a sort of “triangular affair,” was doubtless evolved out of the excitement which visions of festivity sometimes produce. However, on the cases being called, the parties concerned, who had possibly all considerably cooled down in the meantime, applied to the Court to be allowed to withdraw all the informations, which was permitted to be done, and the cases were struck out.
MONDAY, JANUARY 1.
James McBride, for the above offence, was ordered to pay 4s the value of some property he had destroyed whilst in “his eups [cups],” and on doing this was discharged with a caution.
James Blake, for being drunk at the Spit on Saturday last, was fined 5s.
Patrick Lynch, not more than two or three days out of gaol, was brought up and charged with drunkenness, being convicted, he was ordered to pay a fine of 40s. or in default go to gaol for seven days. – He went.
There was another charge against Lynch for having “no lawful means of support,” but the Court determined that it should stand over until he had completed the sentence for drunkenness; he will then be called on to answer to the information under this heading.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 2.
James Blake, who got off yesterday with the minimum fine, was again brought up and charged with drunkenness, which he admitted, but remarked in extenuation, that he did not “get drunk intentionally” somehow it came over him unawares, possibly the beer was too new, He was fined 20s, with the alternative of 48 hours’ imprisonment; he accepted the latter.
DESTITUTE PERSONS, RELIEF ORDINANCE
SLATER V. SLATER.
Walter Slater, against whom an information had been laid by Margaret Slater (his wife) who now resides at Nelson, from the R.M.’s Court of which place an order had been made for the protection of the complainant’s property, and for the payment by defendant of certain monies for the support o two children, and which he had failed to comply with , surrendered, having been at liberty on his own recognizance to appear this day. Mr. Lascelles, on behalf of defendant, applied that he should be discharged, on the ground that no copy of the order had ever been served upon Slater, who having been sworn, deposed to that effect, and as there was no proof whatever to the contrary, the Court declined to proceed with the case, and defendant was dismissed.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 4.
(Before J. Rhodes., Esq., J.P., and J.A. Smith, Esq., J.P.)
TRAVELLING WITHOUT A RAILWAY TICKET.
Robert Young was brought up in custody, and charged, on the information of Mr. Rees Watkins, Railway Guard, with having travelled in a carriage on the railway, without having previously paid his fair, and with intent to evade payment thereof. He was convicted, and a fine of £2 inflicted, or in default of payment seven days’ imprisonment with hard labor. The money not being forthcoming, he was under the necessity of “taking it out on the hill” as he facetiously called it.
COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS.
THURSDAY, 28th DECEMBER.
[Before Col. Herrick, J.P., (Chairman) H. H. Bridge, Esq., and R. Harding, Esq]
A police charge of drunkenness was brought against Patrick Ryan, and failing to appear, his bail of £1 was forfeited.
Clayton v. Dean and Hughes. – The defendants were sub-contractors for Railway work at Te Aute, and the plaintiff claimed £6 0s 6d for labor. Defendants denied their liability as plaintiff had been engaged by another person who had been paid on behalf of plaintiff. The evidence not being satisfactory to the Bench, the plaintiff was non-suited without costs.
Clayton v. H.R. Russell. – Plaintiff claimed £6 for balance of contract and extra work. The defendant admitted a contract of £28 for carpenters’ work in erecting a building. He had paid £25 but declined paying the balance of £3 and extras, the house being very badly built. No evidence was adduced on either side, and the Bench ruled that the Plaintiff ought to have been prepared to prove by witnesses that the contract was completed in a workmanlike manner. Plaintiff non-suited, with costs, 15s, to defendant.
Firth v. Clayton. – Plaintiff claimed £9 9s 4d for stores supplied at Te Aute. Judgment for plaintiff, less £1 interest charged, and costs, 17s.
Brimicourt and another v. Dyett. Claim £3 10s. Case dismissed, plaintiff not appearing, 20s.expenses to defendant.
Crawford v. Logan. Claim of £1 0s 2d for balance of wages, no appearance of plaintiff. Case dismissed, defendant allowed 10s.expenses.
Pain v. Ingram. £13 14s. 6d. claimed for posts, rails, &c., for fencing. Defendant alleged that the posts were very defective and bad, but as he admitted he had agreed to submit to the award of an Arbitrator, who had passed the articles, the Court gave judgment for plaintiff of £13 3s. and costs.
Ingram v. Parkinson and Mills. Claim £10, admitted. Ordered to pay £1 a week, and costs £1 11s.
Four or five cases set down for hearing were withdrawn, and settled out of Court.