Weekly Mercury and Hawke’s Bay Advertiser 23 – June 23 1877

WEEKLY MERCURY
AND
Hawke’s Bay Advertiser,

A Journal of Commerce, Agriculture, Sports, Politics, and Literature.

Vol. II. – No. 84.   NAPIER, SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 1877.   PRICE SIXPENCE

PROPERTIES FOR SALE.
3,920 ACRES Freehold, rich pastoral land, Wairoa, with
800 Sheep, and 100 head Cattle
900 acres Freehold Agricultural and Pastoral Land, Wairoa
4,677 acres Freehold Agricultural and Pastoral Land, Wairoa, with
3,000 Sheep, and other necessary working improvements
3,000 acres Freehold, Southern Seaboard, improved
1,220 acres Freehold, Southern Seaboard, improved
400 acres Freehold, Southern Seaboard, improved
2,500 acres Freehold, Southern Seaboard, improved, with
2,000 Sheep and 250 head Cattle
4,200 acres Freehold Agricultural and Pastoral Land, Poverty Bay
11,000 acres Leasehold, Pastoral, Poverty Bay, with
3000 Sheep and few Cattle
1,600 acres Leasehold, half interest, Poverty Bay
8,800 acres Leasehold, excellent country, Tologa [ Tolaga ] Bay, with
3,000 Sheep and good improvements
1,100 acres Freehold, rich land, Opotiki, with
1,000 Sheep, and all necessary improvements
33,000 acres Leasehold, Pastoral, 26 miles from Napier
150,000 acres Leasehold, Pastoral, 30 miles from Napier, with
10,000 Sheep, exclusive of Lambs
55,000 acres Leasehold, Pastoral, 70 miles from Napier with
5,000 sheep and 50 head Cattle
9,000 acres Freehold, Agricultural and Pastoral, Seaboard, with
14,000 acres Leasehold, valuable improvements, and
15,000 Sheep, few Cattle, Horses, &c.
1,639 acres Freehold, near Greytown, with
1,040 acres Leasehold, all fenced and subdivided, and
5,000 longwool Sheep, 120 Cattle, few horses, and every improvement necessary. The coach road passes through the property.
M.R. MILLER.
Stock and Station Agent.

FOR SALE,
MR. EVAN’S Draught Stallion, “LORD NELSON,” by “Sir Colin Campbell,” dam “Blossom,” etc.
Liberal terms.
For further particulars apply to
M.R. MILLER.

RURAL SECTIONS, WOODVILLE.
On Deferred Payments.
For particulars, apply to
M.R. MILLER.

M. R .MILLER,
STOCK AND STATION AGENT
HAS FOR SALE,
SHEEP STATIONS
of various extent, and
FREEHOLD PROPERTIES,
Stocked and Unstocked, in the Provinces of Auckland, Hawke’s Bay, Wellington. Canterbury, and Otago.
For particulars, apply at the office, Browning-street, Napier.
RAMS FOR SALE.
LINCOLN
Lincoln-Leicester
Leicester
Cotswold
Merinoes,
All First-class Flocks.
STORE SHEEP. – Various Lots of Store Merinos Ewes and Wedders for Sale.

WANTED KNOWN – That in all Orders for GENERAL PRINTING executed at the DAILY TELEGRAPH Office, FULL NUMBERS are guaranteed.

NOTICE.
LEASE OF THE LIGHTHOUSE RESERVE, NAPIER.
Harbor Board Office,
Napier, 16th June 1877.
THE above Reserve, containing 11 acres more or less, all well grassed and now being fenced in, will be Leased by Public Auction, on SATURDAY, the 30th June, at noon, in the old Provincial Chamber, for a term of Twelve Months, at the upset price of £30. Subject to conditions which can be ascertained at my office.
C.B. HOADLEY,
Secretary.

NOTICE.

LEASE OF WHARE-O-MARAENUI BLOCK.
Harbor Board Office,
Napier, 16th June 1877
THE Unsold portion of the above block, better known as Torr’s late paddock, will be leased by Public Auction, on SATURDAY, the 30th June, at noon, in the old Provincial Chamber, for a term of twelve months at the upset price of £100?.  Subject to conditions which can be ascertained at my office.
C.B. HOADLEY,
Secretary.

NAPIER HARBOR BOARD.
NOTICE TO AUCTIONEERS.
TENDERS are invited for conducting the Harbor Board Sales from date of tendering to the 25th April, 1878. Terms per diem.
The Tenders in writing, will be received on the 26th instant, at 11 a.m. sharp, at the old Provincial Chamber, by
C.B. HOADLEY,
Secretary.

NAPIER – MANAWATU RAILWAY.
Public Works Office,
Napier, June 15th, 1877.
TENDERS will be received up to NOON on WEDNESDAY, the 27th Instant, for the ERECTION of a TWO STALL ENGINE SHED and TWO ASH PITS at Waipukurau Station.
Plans and Specifications can be seen at the office of the undersigned to whom the Tenders must be addressed.
The lowest or any tender not necessarily accepted.
By command,
E.H. BOLD,
District Engineer.

Education Board Office,
Napier, June 4, 1877.
NOTICE is hereby given that the following Education Reserve will be offered for Lease (21 years) by Public Auction at the late Provincial Council Chamber, on TUESDAY, September 4, 1877.
Section 289 B, Town of Napier, 1 rood.  Upset price £20 per annum.
JOSEPH RHODES,
Chairman Education Board.

NOTICE.
The Annual Meeting of the Ratepayers of the Waipukurau Road Board District for the purpose of electing Wardens, &c., will be held in the Waipukurau Town Hall, on TUESDAY, July 3rd, at 1 p.m.
H.R. RUSSELL,
Chairman of the Board.

Government Notifications.

“HAWKE’S BAY SPECIAL SETTLEMENTS ACT, 1872.”
Crown Lands Office,
Napier, 19th May 1877.
Notice is hereby given that the following selections of land in the MAKARETU RESERVE having been forfeited, will under Section 13 of the above Act, be sold for Cash, by Public Auction at the Crown Lands Office, at Noon on MONDAY, the 30th July 1877.
SCHEDULE
Applications   Contents   Upset price
A.R.P   £ s. d.
13   100 0 0   50 0 0
15   100 0 0   50 0 0
17   200 0 0   100 0 0
49   100 0 0   50 0 0
50   60 0 0   30 0 0
54   100 0 0   50 0 0
86   40 0 0   20 0 0
110   50 0 0   25 0 0
111   50 0 0   25 0 0
*The above areas are exclusive of 5 per cent allowance for Roads.
J.T. TYLEE,
Commissioner of Crown Lands.

NOTIFICATION.
Crown Lands Office,
Napier, 19th May, 1877.
I HEREBY give Notice that the right to depasture Stock for a period of 5 years over 1500 acres more or less land in the Arapawanui and Moeangiangi District, now at the disposal of the Government, and which was lately comprised in License No. 123, will be offered for competition by Public Auction at this office, at Noon, on SATURDAY, the 30th June next, subject to the terms of “The Hawke’s Bay Renewal of Licenses Act, 1870.”
Conditions may be obtained at this office.
J.T. TYLEE,
Commissioner of Crown Lands.

PLOUGHING MATCH.
WILL BE HELD AT TARADALE,
ON
THURSDAY, JUNE 28TH, 1877.
PROGRAMME OF PRIZES.
Class A –
SWING PLOUGH.
£ s d
First Prize   5 0 0
Second Prize   3 0 0
Third Prize   1 0 0
Class B –
WHEEL PLOUGH.
£ s d
First Prize   4 10 0
Second Prize   2 0 0
Third Prize   1 0 0
DOUBLE FURROW PLOUGH.
£ s d
First Prize   5 0 0
Second Prize   2 10 0
WITH ANY PLOUGH
(Youths under 17 years old).
£ s d
First Prize   3 0 0
Second Prize   1 10 0
Third Prize   0 15 0
WITH ANY PLOUGH
(Natives only)
£ s d
First Prize   5 0 0
Second Prize   3 0 0
Third Prize   1 0 0
Entrance Fee: – Men   7s 6d, Boys   5s.
2 pairs of Winkers will be given to the best kept Harness, by MR. BRADLEY.
The best pair of Draught Horses, and best matched pair of Harness, will also receive prizes.
Entries close at the Taradale Hotel, at 9 o’clock a.m.
Ploughing to commence at 10 o’clock a.m.
A.MACDONALD,
Treasurer.

Watches! Watches! Watches !
JOHN ROBERTSON,
WATCHMAKER AND JEWELLER, Napier,
DRAWS special attention to his Magnificent Stock of WATCHES, just received direct from English and American Manufacturers, and made Specially to Order, which, for Excellence and Cheapness, are unequalled in the colony.
All Watches sold at this establishment are thoroughly regulated and put in working condition before leaving the premises, and Guaranteed.

BOOKS!
BOOKS!!
BOOKS!!!
SUBLIME, RIDICULOUS, GRAVE OR GAY,
AT
COLLEDGE and CRAIG’S.

NEW ZEALAND RAILWAYS.
NAPIER – TAKAPAU.
TIME TABLE.
DOWN.
WEEK DAYS.   SUNDAYS.
A.M.*   A.M. +   A.M.   P.M.   P.M.
Spit, depart   7.40   11.0   3.40
Napier arrive   7.50   11.10   3.50
Napier depart   6.45   7.55   11.30   4.10   2.30
Farndon depart   7.10   8.20   11.55   4.35   2.55
p.m.
Hastings, depart   7.35   8.45   12.20   5.0   3.20
Paki Paki arrive   9.5   5.18
Paki Paki depart   7.53   9.13   5.20
Te Aute arrive   8.32
Te Aute depart   8.35   9.55   6.5
Kaikora depart   9.15   10.35   6.45
Waipawa, depart   9.35   11.15   7.25
Waipukurau arrive   9.55   11.15
Waipukurau depart   10.0   11.30
p.m.
Takapau, arrive   10.50   12.20
* On Monday and Thursday only.
+ On Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday.
UP.
WEEK DAYS.   SUNDAYS.
A.M.   A.M.   P.M.   P.M.   P.M.
Takapau, depart   2.20
Waipukurau, dep.   7.10   3.15
Waipawa, depart   7.30   3.35
Kaikora, depart   7.50   3.55
Te Aute arrive   8.13
Te Aute depart   8.33   4.35
Paki Paki, arrive   9.10   5.15
Paki Paki, depart   9.12   5.22
Hastings, depart   9.32   1.0   5.42   5.20
Farndon, depart   9.57   1.25   6.7   5.45
Napier arrive   10.22   1.50   6.32   6.10
Napier depart   7.20   10.25   3.0
Spit, arrive   7.30   10.35   3.10
*Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday only.
Passengers are requested not to enter or leave the carriages while in motion.
Season tickets issued to and from all Station. Apply to the Manager.
To ensure despatch, Parcels should be booked fifteen minutes before the starting of the Train.
W.J. MILLER,
General Manager,
Napier, March 8, 1877.

APPLICATIONS for W. Speedy’s PATENT WOOL PRESS to be made to J.C. SPEEDY, of Meanee [Meeanee], Sole Agent of Hawke’s Bay.

2   THE WEEKLY MERCURY.

[…]

WAIROA.
(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
June 15.
In answer to the prayers of the Wairoa public, in meeting assembled last night, the rains fell, and the winds blew, and the bar burst. A man-of-war could come in to-morrow.
June 19.
There is a heavy sea on the bar. There is no danger of its blocking up, but still it is hardly practicable.

KAIKORA.
(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
June 19.
A meeting was held here last night at Mundell’s Hotel, when it was resolved to take steps to open a Foresters’ Court, to be called Sir Donald McLean.

WAIPAWA.
(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
June 19.
The County Council found it convenient not to have a quorum, and it was adjourned for a week.
The hearing of the petition against Mr Russell’s election, before R. Stuart Esq., will occupy till 4 o’clock. Mr Johnston opposes the election on the grounds of plurality of votes not being allowed, and certain ratepayers who were eligible not being allowed to vote. He conducts his own case very well. Mr Sheehan appears for Mr Russell.
The Revision Court is sitting. The Revising Officer is hearing objections to sixty natives; most of them it is believed, will be sustained. The cases will likely occupy all day.
LATER.
Mr Johnston and Mr Sheehan have addressed the Court, and Mr Stuart has reserved decision until the 26th. The general belief is that the election will not be upset.
In the Revision Court both sides have scored one each. One native remains on the Roll, and the other taken away. The Court has adjourned for an hour.

[…]

AUCKLAND.

[…]

June 19.
Arrived – Rotorua from Sydney, with news to the 14th. She experienced strong westerly winds and high seas throughout. Passenger for Napier, Mr Johnson.

[…]

GRAHAMSTOWN.
[…]

June 18.
Mr Crawford, who has been in the telegraph office here for six years, left on Saturday for Napier. He was presented with a purse of sovereigns by some leading citizens, and with a gold ring by his brother officers in the Telegraph Office.

[…]

THE WEEKLY MERCURY   3

[…]

SUPREME COURT.
THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 1877.
(Before His Honor Mr Justice Richmond.)

WINTER V. SCHULTZE.
This was an action for malicious prosecution.   The plaintiff sought to recover £500 for the damage sustained by him by the defendant having procured his (plaintiff’s) arrest on a charge of stealing £146 from defendant.
Mr Cornford (for Mr Lee) was for the plaintiff; Mr Rees was for defendant.
The following jury was empanelled: – David Earl Lindsay (foreman), J. Marshall, T. Murphy, J. Beattie, J. Cooper, J. Massey, J. Cunningham, J. Morgan, T. Enright, J. Harris, T.H. Gale, G. Clifton.
Duncan Guy, the Registrar of the Court, deposed as to the information being laid by the defendant, and as to the case being withdrawn in the Resident Magistrate’s Court by Mr Sheehan, on account of insufficient evidence.
Richard Winter, the defendant, gave evidence at great length as to his arrest for robbing the plaintiff of £146 – his imprisonment, and also as to the case having been dismissed. He also gave a long account as to what transpired on the evening of the alleged robbery between himself and the defendant, and other parties.
In cross-examination the prisoner admitted that at the time he was in indigent circumstances, and to his having paid debts and purchased clothing, the day after the robbery was supposed to have occurred. He saw the defendant on the 4th day of April with a bundle of notes in his hand, but denied that when he paid Boggs, he had in his possession a roll of notes.
W.H. Schultz the defendant gave evidence as to the loss of the money. He remembered the plaintiff being in his company the evening he lost it at the Criterion and Star Hotels. He laid the information because he had been informed that Winter on the night he lost his money had offered to play euchre with Boggs at £1 per game, and had also a roll of notes in his possession, and had also changed a £10 note at one shop, and at another a £5 note.
This witness was cross-examined at great length by Mr Cornford, and gave his replies in a very contradictory and confused manner.
Isabella Morley remembered the plaintiff and defendant being in her shop one evening early in April. One of defendant’s hands were full of notes. Next morning Mr Schultz informed her that he had lost his money the night before, and made enquiry as to Mr Winter. The defendant was sober when he paid her £5 the night previous.
Duncan Gray, sworn, deposed that when the information was laid the police sergeant mentioned that Winter had been seen to change certain notes.
George Boggs, sworn: I am a cab driver in Napier. I know the plaintiff. I remember seeing him one night in April. He became responsible to me that night for a small sum of money, and I asked him for it. He said it was only a mistake on his part, that he did not mean to go away without paying, and that he had plenty of money. The amount was two shillings. He paid me, and I paid for the drinks. He had some notes in his possession – a good few. This was at the Albion Hotel. Some people had been playing before, Mr Winter among them. Mr Winter was wanting to play for £1 a game.
By Mr Cornford: This would be about a quarter past seven on the 4th April. Next day the sergeant of police came to me about half-past ten a.m. to enquire about Winter. Winter paid me in the street; he was very tipsy. I had followed him out to get the money. He would not go back, because he was tipsy. I would take it to be more than three or four notes that he held in his hand.
Mr Cornford submitted that there was no proof of loss of money at all. The defendant did not appear to know what he had or had not.
Ben Smith, architect, deposed: I know plaintiff and defendant. I was in the Criterion with Mr Winter and Mr Schultz came in. I saw him produce a large roll of notes. About 8 o’clock next morning I saw Schultz in front of his shop. He said “I have lost £140 – seven £20 notes, all in one roll, with an elastic band round them”. I told him I had remonstrated the previous evening with him as to his being so foolish as to show his notes. I did not say that Winter owned me £3 10s, he had never owed me a penny. I had only lately paid him £1 for some writing. Mr Winter’s name was not mentioned. I saw Moffatt soon after, and sent him down.
Thomas J Northe, solicitor’s clerk, sworn:  I know plaintiff and defendant. About two months ago I had to serve a writ on Mr Schultz in this action. I had great trouble in getting it served. I remember seeing Mr Schultz outside the Court the day the information was laid against Winter. He said he had lost his money, but had found the party; that he had found the four £20 notes, that they were all right. (Mr Cornford here endeavoured to elicit further evidence which was ruled to be inadmissible).
Mr Rees addressed the jury for the defence, and Mr Cornford for the prosecution, replied.
His Honor then summed up the case, and carefully reviewed the evidence. Regarding a suggestion by Mr Cornford, that perhaps the money never was lost; but that Mrs Schultz might know something about it, and considering the circumstances of the disposal of the money in his house, and especially the relations existing between himself and his better half, the possibility of such a contingency had crossed his mind. It was not impossible that Mrs Schultz had a private savings bank of her own – which might be a very excellent institution if her husband often played her such tricks as on the occasion in question. Yet even supposing this – a mere suggestion – to be actual fact, it lay outside the fact; for the question was not so much what had actually become of the money, as whether Schultz had a bona fide belief that it had been stolen, and that the plaintiff was the man who had taken it.
After the jury had been absent about three-quarters of an-hour, they were sent for by His Honor, who stated that with the view of facilitating their decision, he had drawn out a number of questions involving the issues of fact. The answers to these would assist them in coming to the conclusion whether the defendant had reasonable and proper cause for his action against the plaintiff.
The following were the questions submitted to the Jury by His Honor: –
1.   Did the defendant, in the afternoon or evening of the 4th of April, lose £146 or any other sum in bank notes?
2.   Was the plaintiff in needy circumstances before that date, and unable to pay his debts?
3.   Was he unable to supply himself with decent clothing benefitting his position in society? (His Honor reminded the Jury that while the affirmative was maintained on the part of the defence, the plaintiff had testified that he was able, but not willing).
4.   Had the plaintiff, on the same night, possession of a considerable number of bank notes?
5.   Was the defendant informed of these circumstances before laying the information? And further that he had changed notes of the value of £5 and £10?
His Honor directed the Jury to deal in the first place with these questions of fact; and upon receiving their answer he would direct them further.
After a short absence, the Jury returned, and the foreman requested His Honor to read over the evidence bearing upon the question No.5, which His Honor accordingly did.
After a short absence, the jury returned having found an affirmative answer to all the five questions.
His Honor ruled that this finding was equivalent to a verdict that the defendant had reasonable cause for his action. The accused turned out to be innocent, or was thought to be – at any rate there was not evidence to justify a committal. After the answers had been given, nothing remained but a mere matter of law, and it was only for them now to give a verdict for defendant.
The jury then returned a verdict for the defendant, as directed.
His Honor said he had nearly overlooked the fact that the issues on the record had not been answered. This was of course a mere formality after the verdict just given; but it was necessary that it should be complied with. He then read the issues.
The first of these issues – Did the defendant falsely and maliciously charge the plaintiff with stealing a certain sum of money, &c., having been answered in the negative, His Honor said there was no occasion to ask the jury to go through the form of answering the remainder.
The jury were then discharged with the thanks of the Court; and the Circuit sittings were adjourned to Tuesday next, at 10.30 a.m.

MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1877.

IN BANKRUPTCY.
His Honor took his seat at 10 a.m.
Re Edward Thomas. – Mr Rees for the bankrupt. The case was a small one; on the debtor’s own petition; the creditors had not proved, nor attended any meeting.  The assets were nil, and the bankrupt had complied with the provisions of the Act. His Honor supposed it was a hopeless case for the creditors. Order of discharge granted.
Re Henderson Gordon. – Mr Rees for the bankrupt. A case similar to the last, except that most of the creditors were resident in Napier; whereas, in the other instance, several were in Auckland. Order of discharge granted. His Honor remarked that legislators might draw a lesson from the fact that notwithstanding the numerous laws passed year after year on the subject, the proceedings in bankruptcy still ran smoothly. He had administered half-a-dozen different laws, and still the same process was observed; – no proofs, no assets, no opposition; discharge granted. It might almost be done by machinery.
Re Charles McIntosh Robertson. – Mr Rees for bankrupt. A case very similar to the preceding. Order of discharge granted.
Re Frederick Jones. – Mr Rees for bankrupt. Case similar to the rest, except that one creditor, Mr Scarfe, had proved his debt. He did not, however, appear to oppose his discharge, which was granted. Mr Rees applied that the costs of the adjudication might be ordered to be taxed, under Rule 7. Application granted.
Re Francis Emanuel Saunders. – Mr Lascelles for the bankrupt. No proofs, and assets nil. Order of discharge granted.
Re John Howell. – Mr Lascelles for the bankrupt, stated that from ill-health and inability to work, combined with pressure from creditors, he had been compelled to seek protection from the Court. There were no assets, except a piece of freehold property, encumbered by a mortgage. No opposition. Order of discharge granted.
Re William Henry Sellars – Mr Lascelles for bankrupt. No proofs and no opposition. Discharge granted. Mr Lascelles applied for an order for costs up to time of adjudication. Granted.
Re Richard Jeffares. – Mr Wilson appeared for Mr Caldwell, a creditor, who had applied to have a certain proof expunged. The creditor, who had been summoned, failing to appear, the application was not granted; applicant to pay the costs.
This completed the business in bankruptcy.

[…]

4. THE WEEKLY MERCURY.

LOCAL AND GENERAL NEWS.

The Borough of Napier has an overdraft of some £1500 at the Bank, and the Borough Council, accordingly, feels itself constrained to practice the most pinching economy. It is of little moment to our worthy Corporation that, at the end of the next half-year, the debt to the Bank, will be paid off, and that there will be a credit balance of over £600. Extravagance is not to be thought of under the existing circumstances of the Municipality and it is apparently, deemed extravagance for the Corporation to order a light to be erected where excavations are going on, and heaps of stones laid down across public highways. After strong representations had been made on Thursday, respecting the danger to persons at night crossing Clive Square from the foot of the Milton road, a bit of candle was put in a lamp at one part of the man-trap the Corporation has laid in that locality. The candle had burnt itself out before 10 o’clock at night. If it were not for the injury some one would necessarily suffer, it would be a positive benefit to the community if the Corporation were mulct in heavy damages for the neglect of its duty to the public.

The adjourned meeting of persons interested in the formation of a Co-operative Bakery was held on Thursday in the Protestant Hall. The evening being stormy, and dark, there were not so many present as otherwise would have attended. Mr Chas. Hambling was voted to the chair, and after explaining what action had been taken, called on Mr Steele to address the meeting. Mr Steele, after some preliminary remarks, said he had been round the town making enquiries, and found if they formed a Company they could at once obtain possession of one or two bakeries. For one they would have to pay a rent of £1 per week, and for the other 30s. He thought it would be better to lease one of these bakeries for three months then purchase a property, so as to see first how they would progress. He had not the slightest doubt but that the shares would be taken up so soon as the project was really put on foot, as people of all classes had promised support. He deprecated the idea that the movers of the Society were only attempting to benefit themselves. What they had done was for the benefit of the working classes of Napier. It was for the members of the Society to elect officers, and it lay with them to select the best men. – The Chairman said no doubt they would meet with opposition, but if they only put their shoulders to the wheel that would soon be overcome. Once the society was started, nothing would stop its progress. – Mr James Watt stated that why he had taken an active part in the matter was to enable people with families like himself getting cheap bread and full weight. If the present movement were a success, he would consider it one of the best that had ever taken place in Napier. – The Chairman then, in a lengthy speech, gave his experience of Co-operative Societies at home, and the benefit that had accrued from them to the working classes. He was sure a Co-operative Bakery would pay in Napier. – Mr Harrison also spoke as to his being a member of a similar Society, and showed that not only was it a benefit by getting cheap bread, but that the shareholders obtained a good percentage for their outlay. – An individual spoke on behalf of some of the bakers in Napier as to the weight of their bread. – Mr Grenlinton spoke in support of the motion and said that he was not willing to take the names of intending shareholders. – Between forty and fifty shares were then taken up by those present, and a committee was appointed to canvass the town for more shareholders, and to report at a future meeting of shareholders, when the officers required would be elected.

In the Supreme Court on Thursday, in the case of Winter v Schultz, an action for damages for malicious prosecution, His Honor Mr Justice Richmond, referring to the evidence which described how the parties had spent the evening at various public houses, addressed the Jury to the following effect: – “Gentlemen, there is no doubt a ludicrous side to disclosures of this kind, and I have joined in the merriment which has more than once been excited during the progress of this action. Yet though evidence such as we have heard may have its ludicrous aspect, something very different lies not far off. I am shocked, gentlemen, at the picture of our colonial society which such facts present. I am not speaking to you as a teetotaller, or Good Templar, but as a Judge of this Court, occupied day after day with criminal cases caused almost entirely through drink. My experience is that three-fourths of the business of the criminal side, and a great deal on the civil side, is directly owing to drink, and I am saddened when I reflect on the state of society which it discloses.”

[…]

Under the signature of “Napoleon”, a correspondent writes as follows from Waipawa, dated June 14, 1877: – The performance of the justly celebrated champion and his equally perfect lady – which I had the pleasure of witnessing in the Oddfellows’ Hall here to-night – gave genuine satisfaction, and called for the greatest approbation from all whom were present. The comparatively small attendance was undoubtedly owing to the unfortunate state of the weather. This is the more to be regretted as in the exhibition of pure skill, as this most decidedly is, the body of the hall, which of course comprises the greater area, is occupied by the performers in their graceful gyrations; and where the room is limited, so much the more must returns be limited. Leaving the Professor out, as I do not euglogise [eulogise] he people, however deserving, I must claim the privilege of offering my most unqualified admiration of the graceful Lillie. Perfect in her exercise, thorough master of the instruments of her profession, elegant in every movement, in fact, I fell in love with her, and so did all of us. I didn’t try the skates, although the Professor and his lady mixed in the crush and tried by their example to give courage to the faint-hearted. One unfortunate, but ever jolly and still necessary boniface of Waipawa, who at present suffers under the pressure of watery liability, did most ably perform himself, and only once subsided on that which should have provided ample preservation from the effects of the fall. The six decimal two of rubricond (?)  capillary attraction, I fancy is first favorite for the promised cup offered by the Professor. This is not a straight tip, as there are others of considerable skill who may run him hard; but I’ll bet on the red bull. One thing I must take notice of, and that is that the road to the Town Hall, which is simply execrable, should be improved. A little metal and a little labor would save people from wading through a sea of thick mud and distributing the abomination all over the hall, not to mention the great probability of an inquest by Coroner T. on a case of asphyxiation by stoppage of breath by contact with liquid dirt. The hall is multum in parvo good outside and in, and although not to be compared to the Waipukurau Town Hall, still is respectable and useful. I will to-morrow night give you an account of the evening’s amusement. – Pour la present.

There is no dearth of flour in Napier at present. The Rangatira had 50 tons, and the Jane Douglas 80 tons. The Kiwi brought 50 tons, and the Sir Donald was full.

There is a very heavy fresh in the Tutaekuri river consequent on the heavy rain on Thursday.

Inspector Scully acknowledges with thanks the receipt of the following donations in aid of the poor, per Mr Tuxford: – From R. & J., £1 1s; from R & E, £1 1s.

By the Rangatira there arrived five hundred young ornamental shrubs and forest trees, from the Wellington Botanical Gardens, for the planting of the public park ground at Farndon.

[…]

The passengers by the Manawatu Coach, from Wellington, who arrived at Napier on Friday, had a very narrow escape of being swept away when crossing the Manawatu river. There was a heavy flood at the time, and as the punt was crossing, the strands of the wire rope unravelled, leaving but two on which depended the safety of the passengers, mails, &c. The punt was in a most critical position for some time, but owing to the presence of mind and skill of the ferryman, the danger was ultimately averted, and the punt brought safely to shore. We understand that the wire rope has been in an unsafe condition for the past three weeks, and that the ferryman then gave notice to the Manawatu County Council of the state of the ferry. Nothing was done, and now the river is impassable except by swimming. Passengers overland to Wellington, under the above circumstances, would do well to proceed by Mr Hastwell’s line of coaches, via Masterton.

At a meeting held at the School room, Te Aute, on Friday evening, the 15th instant, the following gentlemen were appointed a School Committee: – Mr Spencer Sutton, Chairman; Messrs W. Ellingham, W. Cannon, James Catherall, Committee. As the present school has been in existence since the 14th May last, and there are twenty-five scholars attending daily, the Committee deem it quite necessary that steps should be taken to bring the school under the Government Educational Regulations. The following resolution was proposed and carried unanimously, viz., “That a petition be drawn up for signature and forwarded to the Inspector of Schools, Napier, soliciting that the school be placed under Government Regulations; also that the usual subsidy be granted to the schoolmaster.”

Mr M.R. Miller reports the sale of Messes McLellan and Chandler’s Rakaumoana freehold, of 7000 acres, and Kaiwaka leasehold, of about 23,000 acres, seventeen years to run, the whole estate, with all station plant, and 8000 sheep, for £15,000, to John Hindmarsh, Esq, formerly of Adelaide.

“Napoleon” forwards us the following for publication, under date Waipawa, June 15, 1877: – According to promise I again report progress. The performance in the hall this evening, as far as its being a pecuniary triumph, was more than a success. The hall was crowded, the Professor and his lady eclipsing their former exhibition. It was a pity that the music was not there; but the fault laid not with Mr Taylor. The fact of my again writing proves that I have not been lost in the mud ocean. The great event of the evening was the “race for the cup”. There were nine entries for the blue ribbon, and among a good many weeds there were some very fair performers. The distance was 200 yards and the time of the winner in doing the distance was admitted by the “Queen” to be the fastest on record, viz., 1 min 20 sec., or only nine seconds under the time the Professor waltzed over the same course.  Mr J.M. Wood, an enthusiastic supporter of all our local amusements, of angles on a table (?)  of chords on a violin, and of curved lines on a skating rink, was the winner of the handsome silver cup given by the Professor for the amateur champion. Madame Lillie made the presentation, in a graceful speech, to Mr Wood, who received it by describing a graceful half circle, but which I dreaded, judging that inexperience, would have continued the circle ad infinitum, had not a friendly arm stopped the impetus. The cup itself was of chaste design, and, I hope, with the graceful lady, and with the equally graceful compliment with which she presented it, that it will not be the last Mr Wood will win. One lucky gentleman entered as “Commission”, but, like that now celebrated horse, which is much given to bolting, went inside the flags at the first round, and was thereby thrown out of the running, and but for which mishap the race might have proved a Tye.

Another accident through furious riding occurred on Friday evening at the first railway crossing on the White road. Mr Scorgie, butcher, of Carlyle-street was seated in his cart driving into town with a load of meat from the slaughterhouse. When opposite the turning he was met by three natives who were riding along at a furious pace. One named Otene Patea, with his horse, came in contact with Mr Scorgie’s cart, throwing the driver out of it on to his head, smashing the cart, and leaving its contents on the ground. Strange to say, neither the Maori nor his horse was injured. Our informant states that a policeman came up, but would not arrest the native, although he was not sober. We understand, however, Mr Scorgie intends prosecuting the natives for furious riding.

The charge sheet at the Police Court on Saturday was blank.

THE WEEKLY MERCURY.   5

In our Saturday’s issue we were ill-advised enough to insert a letter signed “Napier,” and the consequence is that today we have been inundated by a flood of correspondence on the subject of Christianity v Mahometanism. The first letter that reached us on Monday was signed “Observer”, and would occupy more than a column of this journal; we then got the first portion of an epistle from the Rev. D’Arcy Irvine that would take up another column, and a further contribution of half a column from “Napier” arrived soon afterwards. Mr Irvine’s letter that he “particularly wants here in Napier to discuss the whole question of the Christian evidences, as contrasted with Mahometanism, and to go into the question of miracles as contrasted with lying wonders,” &c., &c. Such being the case, the sooner we shut our columns to the controversy the better. We are not going to publish another line on such questions, and we beg to inform our correspondents that they may have their manuscripts returned on application.

[…]

A list, we understand, of the owners and occupiers of land in the Taradale District, constituted by the Hawke’s Bay Rivers Act, has been posted at Mr Macdonald’s Hotel. The election of the Board of Conservators must take place fourteen days after the list has been publicly posted and notified.

[…]

The foot-ball match on Saturday between Auckland and Napier, again resulted in a victory for the Aucklanders who were winners by several points.

[…]

The New Zealand Times of Thursday says: – “A few days ago a civil case, Sam Howard v. Ashton, came before the Resident Magistrate and was adjourned: £81 7s. was the amount claimed, on account of a contract entered into between the parties to the suit, when Messrs. Baker and Farron went to Napier for a season. Mr Ashton, the lessee of the hall there, having guaranteed them £200 for six nights. The claim entered was for the difference between the actual takings and the amount guaranteed. We understand that there is a probability of the case being amicably settled, and that it will not come before the Court again.”

A second lecture on spectrum analysis was delivered by Mr Severn, on Saturday evening, at the Oddfellows’ Hall. We were glad to see the lecture so well attended, the advantages of the larger hall were at once apparent, in giving more room for the necessary apparatus. Mr Severn took up the subject from where he had left off on a previous evening, and explained the phenomens [phenomenons?] attendant to this most delicate system known of qualitative analysis. In the course of demonstration, the lecturer threw upon the screen the spectra of various metals, among which were zinc, sodium, silver, and that rare metal – thallium. The metals were fused and vaporised by means of an automatic electric lamp of Browning’s make, worked by a strong Bunsen battery. The extreme nicety of the tests made by means of the spectroscope was dwelt upon, indeed it is dangerously exact, and some experimentalists claim to be able to detect the presence of certain substances in a compound body, if only existing in quantity, to the extent of one millionth part of a grain. The apparatus used by the lecturer was of a very elaborate description, and efficiently manipulated.

[…]

We have to acknowledge receipt of the first copy of the Ashburton Mail, a new double-demy bi-weekly journal, published by Mr J. Ivess, late of Patea. It is well got up, and a credit to the district. The first number of the Northern Advocate, a new weekly journal, published at Whangarei, in lieu of the Comet, also lies before us. We wish our youthful contemporaries every success.

As an evidence of the very satisfactory manner in which Mr E. Tuke performed the duties of valuator for the outlying districts within the County of Hawke’s Bay, we may mention that not a single objection was raised to his valuation.

The Napier Municipal Council met on Monday. The following report of the Public Works committee was read and adopted: –
“1   That in future all successful tenderers be compelled to attend with their sureties at the Town Clerk’s office, for the purpose of signing their contract documents within seven (7) days from the date of acceptance of the same by the Council on pain of the forfeiture of their deposit for noncompliance, and that the said deposit, when paid by cheque, be marked by the manager of the bank on which drawn, “Good for 21 days.”
2   That the draft conditions for lighting the town herewith, submitted for the approval of the Council, be adopted.
3   That with reference to Mr Sainsbury’s application for the repair of Chaucer-road, the same to be granted on payment by him of the sun of ten pounds.
4   That the salary authorised by the Council to be paid to Mr R. Burley of £10 10s per month be increased to £12.
5   That tenders be invited for the erection of a fence round the fire engine-shed, receivable up to noon of the 28th inst. On the motion of His Worship the Mayor, Police Sergeant James Robinson was appointed Poundkeeper for the Borough. A petition praying the Governor to extend the boundaries of the Borough was signed by the Councillors. After a few remarks relative to the swamp reclamation, and prison labor, the Council adjourned.

Mr Severn’s sixth lecture was delivered on Monday at the Oddfellows’ Hall, and attracted the largest audience he has had during his sojourn amongst us. Electricity was the theme of the lecturer’s discourse and investigations, and the experiments and the explanatory remarks were clear and graphic. The subtle force we call electricity has been without doubt of all physical agents disclosed to us by modern scientific research the most potent in the promotion of civilization and diffusion of knowledge. In the course of the lecture, Mr Severn gave a brief resume of the laws of galvanism, and illustrated the action of the electric current by some striking experiments. The principle of the action of a galvanic battery was explained, and it was exhibited how electricity will be evolved by the chemical action of a suitable solution on two dissimilar metals. The laws of resistance, and the conductivity of metals, was then gone into. Afterwards the principle of the permanent and electro, magnets, and the application of the latter to telegraphy, was practically demonstrated. The application of the electric current to exploding torpedoes, was given with some instructive and interesting failures, without occasional mishaps many wonderful properties of force and matter would long remain uninvestigated. Experiments were then made with the induction coil, its powerful current being transmitted through some magnificent Geissler’s vacuum tubes. This portion of the apparatus was used for the first time at the lecture we are now describing, and is of the best description of its class. The electric light was explained and shewn [shown], and a very delectable and entertaining lecture was brought to a termination with the exhibition of some photographic transparencies and microscopic subjects by means of the lime light, which was in much better form than heretofore. 

A correspondent of the Poverty Bay Standard is under the impression that the about to be formed Corporation of Gisborne will be extravagantly charged for the maintenance of prisoners at Napier who have been committed at Gisborne. There is no safe gaol at Gisborne, and this correspondent thinks it would pay to have one established there, as the value of the labor of prisoners is more than double the cost of their keep.

[…]

The members of the Taradale Mutual Improvement Society have resolved to give a dramatic and musical entertainment on Friday next. The funds arising from the entertainment are to be devoted to the purposes of the Society, which will doubtless be well patronised.

The libel case against the Government Maori organ, by the Hon. H.R. Russell is fixed to come off on Monday, the 20th August, at Wellington.

On Friday, according to the usual home custom, Messrs Langley and Newman, cabinet-makers gave a supper on the occasion of one of the apprentice’s time being completed, in one of their large workshops, which was tastefully decorated with evergreens, flowers, banners, and different coats of arms. All the workmen, and a number of their friends, sat down to a sumptuous repast, which, after being done ample justice to, was followed by the usual and loyal and other toasts, interspersed with some capital songs, several good musicians being present. The evening was enlivened by some well rendered pieces, which tended greatly to the enjoyment of the company present. At eleven o’clock, after singing God Save the Queen, all started for their homes, everyone having thoroughly enjoyed himself.

[…]

Here is a wrinkle for Inspector Scully to be used when he is on the lookout for unregistered dogs. It is taken from the San Francisco News Letter: – Dog fanciers in this city are getting shy about answering advertisements for pointers, terriers, and other canine beauties. The astute police officer put a card in the Chronicle this week stating that he wished to buy a handsome pup. “Apply to C.B., No – Montgomery-street, between 10 a.m., and 1 p.m., for three days.” The advertiser was at the rendezvous punctually, with his waggon and a complete outfit of Mexicans and lassoes.  Four hundred and seventeen dogs answered the advertisement, that is to say were offered for sale by their owners, to the wily official. Three hundred and ninety-four of these were unregistered, immediately captured and put in durance vile. An inventive mind will ever inaugurate devices for the suppression of evils, and it is to be hoped that this plan for the extirpation of mongrel curs may be worked long and successfully.

[…]

To the Editor: – Sir, I have just come to hand a late Oamaru paper in which flour is quoted there at £16 per ton. In looking over an account forwarded to me yesterday, I find I have to pay 29s for a cwt of the same flour. Is this not an imposition? And ought not the people to co-operate in getting cheap flour as well as cheap bread? – A BREAD WINNER.

On Tuesday at Waipawa, the petition of S. Johnston and others against the return of the Hon. Henry Russell for the representation of the Waipukurau Riding in the Waipawa County Council, R. Stuart Esq., presided. Mr Sydney Johnston appeared in support of the petition, and Mr Sheehan for the Hon H.R. Russell. The petition was read, in which it was set forth, first, That the Returning Officer refused to permit cumulative voting. Second, That one of the Deputy Returning Officers canvassed in the election booth for one of the candidates. Third, That certain electors, although eligible, were not permitted to vote. – Mr Johnston made a lengthy and able speech in support of the petition, calling the attention of the Court to the fact that there had been three contested elections for the same seat, and at the two first elections cumulative voting was permitted. Mr Johnston quoted in support of his argument, Mr Beetham’s decisions in the Clive election, and also the first Waipukurau election in which that gentleman stated clearly that in his opinion cumulative voting was legal. In the face of those opinions, he could not understand the action of the Returning Officer. Mr Johnston also referred to the fact that the roll supplied by the Chairman of the Waipukurau Riding was one not in accordance with the Act. With regard to the second allegation on the petition he would withdraw it, as he had no evidence prepared to support it. – The evidence of Mr Arrow, the Returning Officer, was then given, who stated that so far as the rolls were concerned, he was actuated in a great measure by the advice given him by Mr Beetham. He obtained the rolls he went by from the several Chairmen of the Road Boards. – Charles Morton, the Returning Officer at Ashley Clinton, deposed that he refused the vote of one person named Brier. It was placed on the roll as Brewer without a Christian name, and he was not sure that he was the same man as on the roll. – Adolf Bruer deposed that he had paid rates, and had told the Returning Officer he was the person on the roll as Brewer. He was a Hungarian. The English always called him Brewer, but the proper pronunciation of his name was Brier. – Bertie Reed deposed that his name did not appear on the rolls. In cross-examination, it was elicited that this witness had disposed of his property interest in the Waipukurau riding to his partner prior to the last election. – The evidence of Mr Monteith as to the manner in which the valuation roll was made up was then taken, and also that of the Hon Henry Russell, as Chairman of the Waipukurau Road Board as to the roll he had forwarded to the Returning Officer. – Mr Sheehan, in a short but argumentative speech, addressed the Court on behalf of the Hon. H.R. Russell, contending that the election was a legal one, and pointing out the difference between the law as in operation now, and when Mr Beetham gave his previous decisions. – The Court reserved its judgment, which is to be given at Napier on Tuesday next.

An effort is being made in the County of Waipawa to establish a Horticultural Society. The Hon. H.R. Russell is the instigator of the movement, and we believe, offers to grant a piece of land at Waipukurau for the use of the Society should one be formed.

To the Editor. – Sir, – Can you inform me if the County is going to pay for advertising expenses for the list of Meanee [Meeanee] ratepayers requesting the County to take over the Road Board? Or whether it will come out of the private purses of those who initiated the movement. As a Taradale ratepayer, if it comes out of County funds, I protest against such a waste of money. – TARADALE SETTLER.

Mr. Garry has turned out from his factory six of the iron lamp-posts of the thirty-six ordered by the Corporation. The design of the posts is neat, and the workmanship is excellent.

[…]

The Revision Court for the Electoral District of Clive sat continuously on Tuesday, at Waipawa, from 11.30 a.m. til 8 p.m. with respect to the objections to native claims to vote, thirteen were sustained and forty-two were over-ruled. Of the objections to the European claims, of which there were not more than half a dozen, all were sustained except that against, Mr George Hunter, against whose name “dead” had been affixed. As Mr Hunter, however, had been perverse enough to live, the objection to his name being retained on the roll was withdrawn.

[…]

6   THE WEEKLY MERCURY.

We are requested to state that St John’s Day falling on Sunday, the ordinary June meeting of the members of Scinde Lodge will be held on Monday, 25th instant, at the Masonic Hall.

That eccentric individual Mr Singleton Rochefort, formerly District Court Judge at Napier, and who has once or twice been a candidate for Parliamentary honours, was sued in the R.M. Court at Auckland the other day for a grocer’s account. His defence was that he had no means of his own; that, although living with his wife, he had not, during the time the account was run up, contributed, or been able to contribute, to the household; and that, although he had ordered the goods, he had done so simply as his wife’s servant, as they kept no other. His wife, he stated, had separate means.

[…]

The term “sheepist” has become so common in some districts around Napier, by which to designate the occupation of a sheep-farmer, that, the other day, one of our large wool growers, being called upon to witness the signatures to a deed of conveyance, signed his name, and wrote “sheepist” beneath it as a matter of course.

The performance of the Artillery Dramatic Club attracted a full house at the Oddfellows’ Hall on Wednesday. Both the members of the Artillery and Fire Brigade were present in uniform. Being a first appearance of the Club, we shall offer no criticism.

Now that Napier is again possessed of a Public Pound and Poundkeeper, it is to be hoped that there will be fewer animals found grazing in the public streets.

In the R.M. Court on Thursday a man named John Kilton was charged on the information of Constable Black, with having imbibed too freely the previous evening. His Worship the Mayor who presided, fined him 5s or 24 hours imprisonment. Having spent all his money when on the spree, Kilton was sent up to the Lighthouse hill. – A man named Maloney was charged by Constable Black with stealing an Ulster overcoat, a pair of gloves, and a smoking cap the property of James McMurray, from the Royal Hotel. From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner was drunk, and had taken the coat for a “lark”, and hid in a quarry near the Hyderabad road. Mr McMurray stated that he had given Maloney in charge to Constable Black, he having been informed that he was the person who had taken it from Mr Higgin’s Hotel. His Worship in dismissing the case, cautioned the prisoner as to his future conduct. Maloney promised to become a Good Templar.

The old New Zealand steam trader Phoebe has been laid up in Sydney, and offered for sale.

The Rev. Mr Townsend left for Canterbury yesterday in the Rotorua, and will sojourn there for twelve months.

A correspondent, signing himself “Fustain”, forwards us a long letter complaining of treatment he received from some drunken man on the Milton-road, whose name he gives. He further states that the police officials refused to grant him a summons for the person assaulting him, on the grounds that he would not be able to prove his case. We cannot publish the letter in its present state, as we have no desire to figure as defendants in a libel action. We recommend our correspondent to obtain legal advice as to his proper course of action.

The following is the list of accepted tenders, for the performance of inland mail services, in the provincial district of Hawke’s Bay: – Between Takapau and Palmerston North, Hastwell and Macara, £475 (1 year only); Napier and Spit (including Seaborne Mails), D. Cotton, £100; Napier and Taradale, via Meanee, G. Rymer, £36 (1 year only ); Taradale and Puketapu, G. Rymer £50; Hastings and Kereru, R. Walker £70; Hastings and Havelock, G.R. Grant, £25; Havelock and Pourerere, W. Sutherland, £59; Waipawa and Hampden, Thomas Burgess, £35; Waipawa and Makaretu, James Clarke £65 (1 year only ); Kaikora and Patangata, G. Mulinder, £30; Waipukurau and Porangahau, Wm Tyne, £190; Porangahau and Castlepoint, C.A.M. Hertzell, £130; Napier and Wairoa, Edward E. Noble, £155; Wairoa and Mahia, A. Gethin, £50; Gisborne and Ormond, J. Bidgood, £40; Chief Post Office and Railway Station, John Harvey, £45; Waipawa Post Office and Railway Station, W.B. Garnham, £15; Puketapu and Erewhon, M. Ruddy, £120 (1 year only); Waipukurau Post Office and Railway Station, J.K. Boyle, £15; Clive and Farndon Station, Henry Hawken, £10 (1 year only); Waipawa and Tamumu, Alex. Mackay, £20 (1 year only); Te Aute Post Office and Railway Station, E. Firth, £6; Napier and Tauranga, A. Peters, £2,080.

On Tuesday Mr Severn concluded his series of scientific lectures. The subject of the evening was “Terrestial [Terrestrial] Magnetism,” which was briefly, but ably, sketched. Incidentally to the description, experiments were made illustrative of polarity and the construction of the compass and magnetic needles. The curves formed by magnetic lines of force, as exhibited by iron filings when under magnetic influence, were projected on the screen by means of the lantern. The lecturer further illustrated the resistance and conductivity of metals by sending an electric current through a metallic chain made with alternate links of silver and platinum wire, the former metal being almost a perfect conductor, remained cool, while the platinum, offering more than twelve times the resistance to the passage of the electricity, became white hot. The lecturer then gave an explanation of the construction of his induction coil (a very fine one), and put its terminals in circuit with some Geissler’s vacuum tubes – the largest and most brilliant we have ever had the pleasure to see. Among the tubes were some containing uranium glass, recognizable by its beautiful green tint, and others containing rarefied alcholic [alcoholic] vapor, shown by the purple color; others of gorgeous brightness, with different gases arranged to give fanciful and pleasing designs. The absence of the spectroscope precluded the lecturer from fully describing the contents of each tube. With the exhibition of some microscopic slides, among which was a trough containing animalculae in vinegar, and a collection of excellent photographic slides – chiefly European views, a most agreeable and instructive séance was brought to a termination. In concluding the scientific part of the lecture, Mr Severn took occasion to thank his hearers for the deep interest taken by them in the subjects he has for the last twelve evenings been expounding. The attendances at the lectures delivered here, he stated, would numerically compare favourably with the larger towns he had visited. This circumstance speaks well for the intellectual calibre of the community; and we hope that the series of lectures just terminated will be the precursor of others, either from Mr Severn himself, whose stay amongst us we very much regret is not longer, or from some of the professors of physical science in the South, whose efforts are, from all accounts, not appreciated as they deserve to be. We heartily wish Mr Severn every success in the plans he has projected for his future operations.

[…]

Mr H. Campbell has relinquished business in Napier, and we regret to hear that he is about to leave us to become a sheep-farmer in the Waikato. Napier loses an energetic business man, and a thoroughly public spirited townsman in Mr Campbell, but he will carry with him the good wishes of all who have known him. Mr Campbell’s successor is Mr Ebenezer Price, who has for some years been connected with Messrs Herbert, Haynes and Co., drapers of Dunedin, one of the largest firms in the colony.

[…]

Church of England Service will be held (D.V.) on Sunday next, the 24th instant, at Hastings at 11 a.m., at Havelock at 3 p.m.; and at Clive, at 7 p.m.

Wesleyan Service will be held at Hastings, next Sunday afternoon, at 3.30 p.m.

SUPREME COURT.
TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1877.
(Before His Honor Mr Justice Richmond.)
His Honor took his seat at 10.30 a.m.

LIBEL.
Alexander Kennedy v. W.W. Carlile, T. Morrison, and P. Dinwiddie.
Mr Cornford for plaintiff; Messrs Wilson and Carlile for defendants.
Plaintiff claimed £1000 damages.
Mr Cornford said that before the jury was empanelled he had an offer to make on behalf of the plaintiff, who, if the defendants would agree to withdraw all imputations case upon him, and apologise for the same, and pay all costs, was willing to withdraw the action. This offer was not to be construed into any admission on the plaintiff’s part.
His Honor said that he knew so little about the case, that he could not make any recommendation on the subject.
Mr Wilson said it was now too late. The proposition should have been made before.
The following special Jury was empanelled: – N. E. Beamish, (foreman), Massey Hutchinson, John Giblin, R. P. Williams, A. F. Hamilton, H. R. Holder, S. W. Elmes, H. Powdrell, A. H. Wallace, H. Sladen, W. Ellison, T. Tiffen.
Among the jurors called was Mr. R. D. Maney, who was challenged by Mr. Cornford.
Mr. Wilson objected. This was a special jury case, and it was not competent to challenge.
Mr. Cornford said it was open to him to challenge, for cause shown.
His Honor had never known an instance. He wished to know Mr. Cornford’s authority.
Mr. Cornford said the Juries Act of 1868, specifically referred to the right of challenge in special jury cases.
His Honor said Mr. Cornford’s course was quite unusual; but might be correct.
Mr. Cornford read the 36th clause of the Act.
His Honor said that this supported Mr Cornford’s view of the case.
Mr Wilson asked if His Honor ruled in Mr Cornford’s favour.
His Honor: I do, with some diffidence. It took me by surprise; but after Mr Cornford’s reference, I must allow the challenge. The Legislature may make a slip in a matter of this kind; but when it gets into an Act of Parliament, it is a slip no longer, it becomes law.
Mr Wilson wished his objection to be noted. His Honor noted it accordingly.
The issues were than [then] read to the Jury, as follows: –
1.   Are Thomas Kennedy Newton, Edward William Knowles, in the declaration mentioned, and the plaintiff, joint proprietors of a certain newspaper called the DAILY TELEGRAPH, as in the declaration mentioned.
2.   Are the defendants the proprietors, printers, and publishers of a certain other newspaper called the Hawke’s Bay Herald, as in the declaration mentioned.
3.   Did the defendants, on the 27th day of December, 1876, falsely and maliciously print and publish of the plaintiff the words following: – “They.” (meaning thereby the plaintiff and the said Thomas Kennedy Newton and Edward William Knowles) “now stand virtually branded as fraudulent in the eyes of the public, and they” (meaning the plaintiff and the said Thomas Kennedy Newton and Edward William Knowles) “now stand virtually branded as fraudulent in the eyes of the public, and they (meaning thereby the plaintiff and the said Thomas Kennedy Newton and Edward William Knowles) “may just as well have the brand affixed in a more regular and formal manner.?”
4.   What damages (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to recover?
Mr Cornford opened the case for the plaintiff. This was an action by Mr A. Kennedy, merchant, of Napier, occasioned by certain defamatory statements regarding himself and others, contained in a letter, signed by defendants, in the Hawke’s Bay Herald, on the 27th December, 1876. It would be noticed that the action was brought by one person, in his own name, and it might be supposed that he might as well have joined with the others affected in a single action. But this was not the case. If a joint action had been brought, it would have been necessary to prove joint damages – that the parties had been effected in their partnership business by the libel complained of; whereas the injury complained of by the plaintiff was one of a personal kind, as affecting his own character and reputation. In a joint action the question would have been narrowed to the joint damage sustained by the plaintiff in his relations with the other parties aggrieved.
Mr Wilson would show the contrary – that an action for joint damages would lie.
Mr Cornford did not deny that such an action would lie; but it would not meet the case. The libel no doubt had a tendency to damage the plaintiff in his position as the joint proprietor of a newspaper; but a man might suffer socially without any damage to his business being perceptible. It was sought by this action for personal damages, for which the plaintiff had his own private remedy; quite apart from such loss or injury in business as he might have sustained in common with his partners. The charge complained of was one of fraud, and the language in which it was conveyed was such that it would be scarcely possible to say anything stronger against a man in Mr Kennedy’s position, or more calculated to damage him in the eyes of the community than the libel complained of. It was not necessary in an action of this kind to prove special damages; the law regarded damage to reputation as very serious indeed; so much so, as to be a matter for criminal indictment. The law inferred damage from a public libel and did not hold the plaintiff bound to give particulars of such damage. The plaintiff occupied various positions of trust and importance. He was a Justice of the Peace, a trustee of the local savings bank, a member of various public boards, a secretary of a public company; and in each of these positions his reputation would have been affected if he had suffered such a charge to pass unchallenged. It was open to him to seek redress in two ways – by a criminal prosecution, or by civil process.  To the defendants three courses were open – to tender an apology, pleading inadvertence in mitigation; to deny the publication of any libel, or, if published, that it referred to the plaintiff; or to plead justification, and undertake to establish the truth of the statements complained of. In the latter course, the whole matter would have to be gone into; all the attendant circumstances would have to be gone into, and the question for the jury would have been – Were the facts such as in the first place to establish the truth of the alleged libel, and in the second, to justify its publication? Such questions could not arise in the present instance, the defendants having chosen the second course. They did not apologise or plead inadvertence – they did not attempt to justify the libel – they merely denied all the material allegations made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, with others had been described as “standing virtually branded with fraud,” and the present action was a challenge to them, in their own words, to “affix the brand in a more regular and formal manner” – if they could. The charge, he submitted, was calculated to affect most seriously the character and position of the plaintiff. The question for the jury would not be the intention of the libel; but its tendency. If they consider that it tended to damage the credit or reputation of the plaintiff, it was no defence for the parties responsible to say that they never intended any such result to arise.
His Honor: The question of intention is for the Jury. They are bound to assume it from the natural tendency of the act.
Mr Cornford said he was just coming to this point. It was true, as His Honor had said, that they were to consider intention; but it could only be assumed from the natural tendency of the action complained of; not from testimony of any other kind. It might be with a large section of the public these injurious statements would have no weight; but this, while it was to the honor of the plaintiff, was no defence to the other side. It was not open to the defendants to screen themselves under the well-known

THE WEEKLY MERCURY.   7

blameless character of the person they had wantonly assailed. A matter like this demands investigation. The charge was of too gross a kind for a man to be expected to sit down quietly under it; his silence would be construed into an admission of guilt. Mr. Kennedy, with two other gentlemen concerned, being the proprietors of a newspaper, it might be hastily inferred that the matter was nothing but a newspaper quarrel, such however, was far from being the case, it was a matter of private reputation. The defendants were proprietors, printers, and publishers of a newspaper, the plaintiff was connected with the rival journal only in the capacity of shareholder. He was neither manager, editor, or contributor, and by virtue of his proprietorship, he had lost none of his social rights. If the defendants had committed a wrong, it was their business to tender some amends; but nothing of the kind had been done. in the Herald of the 27th December last appeared a sub-leader, referring to a Government tender for advertising, signed, “Dinwiddie, Morrison, and Co.,” which he would now read. (In reading the letter, Mr Cornford directed the attention of the Jury especially to the following passage: “Let them take up our challenge. They risk nothing in any case. We will pay the expenses of arbitration, whatever the result may be, and they cannot possibly be called on to pay anything in any event. We may suggest to the Hospital Committee the desirableness of making an effort to induce them to take it up. They may put it to them in this way: – That it cannot make their position any worse, whatever the arbitrators say about them. They now stand virtually branded as fraudulent in the eyes of the public, and they may just as well have the brand affixed in a more regular and formal manner.” The plaintiff, though referred to by name in this paragraph, had no personal management or supervision of any part of the business. There had been a dispute between the papers as to the accuracy of the returns of circulation forwarded to the Government; each calling in question the correctness of the other’s statements. The “challenge” to which the Herald referred was not an offer to examine the whole matter – it left quite out of sight the truth or otherwise of the Herald’s own returns – but briefly called upon the TELEGRAPH proprietors to submit their books and every particular connected with their newspaper to the inspection of arbitrators in face, to give a full and minute statement of the value of their business, for the Herald’s satisfaction. No response being made to this invitation, they were in the letter which he had read, dragged severally by name into the dispute, as being responsible for alleged false statements by an employe. [employee]. He wished notice to be taken of the clause, “It can-not make their position any worse.” What did this imply but that the plaintiff and his partners were so utterly ruined in reputation that new disclosures, however serious, of attempted or successful fraud, could not sink them lower in public estimation. He submitted, in spite of the gross aspersions cast upon him, that Mr Kennedy held as unblemished a character as any man in the community. By his present action he challenged the defendants by all means to prove him guilty of fraud if they could; by the writ he said to them in effect, “Justify your statements, or apologise.” Had they attempted to justify themselves the whole matter in dispute would have come before the jury. As for the defence they had made – that they had never said anything to injure the plaintiff, the jury would have to say how much it was worth. If by retraction or apology the defendants had brought in some measure to make amends for the wrong they had done, the case would not have been such a  grievous one; but no attempt of the kind had been made – not even when a final opportunity was given that morning. The plaintiff had been quite willing to have accepted amends of that kind even up to the last moment. The other side had given him notice that they would, in mitigation of damages, put in articles published by the TELEGRAPH, as having a tendency to provoke the attack complained of. Whatever consideration they might be disposed to attach to evidence of this kind, in mitigation, His Honor would inform them that one libel could not be set off against another. It was a matter of notoriety that journals were in the habit of jarring at each other. If anything had been said on the other side reflecting on the reputation or character of the defendants, they had the proper means of redress open to them, and were not justified in the kind of retaliation they had adopted. It would, however, be clear that up to the publication of the letter on which the present action was based, ordinary arena of journalistic warfare had not been departed from. It had been laid down that a journal was justified in commenting upon the conduct of another, or the style of its articles, or might indulge in all kinds of sarcastric [sarcastic] allusions to these subjects. The present question, however, was not one of criticism, fair or unfair; but of bringing slanderous charges against private individuals in their private capacity.
Alexander Kennedy, sworn: I am plaintiff in this action. I am a member of the firm of Routledge, Kennedy and Co., auctioneers and commission agents. My business extends throughout all the Australian Colonies. I have resided in Napier more than nineteen years. I hold a good many offices of a public nature; I am a Justice of the Peace; I am a trustee of the Napier Savings Bank; I am a member of the Immigration Board, the Land Board, and the Harbor Board; I am Secretary of the Napier Gas Company. I am part proprietor of the DAILY TELEGRAPH. I have no other connection with the paper than that of owner. I do not understand the business. I have taken no share in the ordinary concerns of the office. The management is left to the employees, my connection being merely financial. I know the Hawke’s Bay Herald newspaper, conducted and published by Messrs Carlile, Dinwiddie, and Morrison. I remember very well a letter signed Dinwiddie Morrison and Co., and published in the Hawke’s Bay Herald of 27th December. (Herald produced and identified.) Messrs Newton, Knowles, and myself are mentioned by name in that letter. (Mr Wilson, objected to the witness being question as to the construction placed by him on the terms of the letter.) I understand all the reference in the first paragraph to refer to me. I understood a very serious imputation to be cast upon me by that paragraph. I am not aware of any circumstances tending to give a different meaning to the paragraph, than that which appears on its face. The “challenge” referred to appeared in the Herald of 22nd December. (Paper produced, and placed in witness’s hands.)
By Mr Wilson: I once appeared as a defendant in a libel case brought by Mr. Sealy, in connection with the DAILY TELEGRAPH paper. A fine was imposed, and I had to pay costs. I cannot prove direct pecuniary damage through the libel of which I complain; but my business may have suffered, and I should be the last person to hear of it. I do not know of any person who has shunned me on account of this. I have not been asked to resign any of my offices on account of it. I read the TELEGRAPH. (A copy of that paper of 23rd December was handed to witness.)  It contained a letter signed by Mr. Grigg, the manager, I probably read it at the time; I have never read it since.
Mr. Cornford objected to cross-examination on the contents of the letter at this stage, and the objection was allowed.
Cross-examination continued. I took legal advice about the letter, and a writ was issued on the 3rd January. No apology was applied for. I remember a proposition to try one case instead of three, which was rejected by myself and partners.
Re-examined by Mr Cornford: Referring to my former appearance in a libel case, it was owing to my responsibility for the acts of my employee. I was fined £5, but the jury recommended myself and fellow defendants to mercy.
John Close, sworn: I am a merchant in Napier. I know Mr Kennedy, the plaintiff in this action. I know the Hawke’s Bay Herald. I remember reading a letter therein on the advertising contract, signed Dinwiddie, Morrison & Co. I know the three gentlemen, Messrs Kennedy, Newton, and Knowles, mentioned in the first paragraph. I remember Mr Knowles being at my house on the morning of the 27th. We read the letter over together.
Mr Wilson objected to the evidence, which His Honor held to be irrevelant [irrelevant].
Witness continued: I understood, and still understand the plaintiff to have been referred to in the first paragraph of the letter. I understood the plaintiff and his co-proprietors to be referred to as “standing virtually branded as fraudulent in the eyes of the public.” I understand it as referring to the staff and the proprietors altogether. I know Mr Kennedy’s business. I should not like such a charge to be made against myself.
Cross-examined by Mr Wilson: To whom do you suppose the pronoun “They” to refer to in the middle of the paragraph? To the staff of the office. To whom does it refer in the sentence “Yet they set their circulation down?” To altogether, I suppose. “Let them take up our challenge,” and who does that mean? I do not think the staff can be intended in that paragraph. I know Mr Grigg, it might have referred to him. I know Mr Price, who is connected with the paper. It might refer to him; but I think it refers to one and all.
H. A. Banner, sworn: I am a commission agent. I know Mr Kennedy, the plaintiff in this case, and the defendants. I know the Herald newspaper. I remember the publication of the letter produced. I know the persons referred to in the first paragraph of that letter. I had no doubt as to the parties referred to in that letter. (Mr Wilson objected.) I consider the word “they” in the last sentence of the paragraph to refer to the gentlemen indicated by name in the earlier part of the letter.
By Mr Wilson: I presume the term “they” in “It is not possible,” to refer to the employes [employees]. “Yet they set their circulation down,” &c, I suppose that to refer either to the editor or the proprietors.
Re-examined by Mr Cornford: I am not aware of any extrinsic circumstances to prevent the word “they” referring to the proprietors all through.
Hugh Campbell, sworn:
His Honor: For what purpose is this witness called? The same as the last?
Mr Cornford: Yes.
His Honor appealed to the foreman of the jury, who said they required no further evidence as to the meaning of the word “they”.
Witness examined: I am a draper carrying on business in Napier. I remember the publication of the letter produced. I understood the proprietors of the paper to be referred to in the sentence, “They now stand virtually branded, &c.”
This closed the plaintiff’s case, and the Court took a short adjournment.
On the Court resuming, Mr Wilson asked His Honor to rule that there was no case to go to the Jury.
His Honor considered that a case for the Jury had been made out.
Mr Wilson then addressed the Jury. The case had been represented as something of a very aggravated kind, where – as it was nothing but a paltry miserable squabble between some of these so-called members of the press. One paper got a Government contract, and was jubilant; the other which did not get it, was sore. It was an extraordinary thing that these so-called gentlemen of the press never could observe the ordinary courtesies attended to in other professions. The alleged libel was just one of these ebullitions constantly appearing in the internecine warfare between newspapers, which was considered the correct thing; and although in law one libel was not held to justify another, he would show that the letter complained of had been provoked by statements in the rival paper of quite as injurious a kind. The real questions were, whether the paragraph was a libel directed against the plaintiff; and if so, whether he had sustained any damage by its publication. The exact terms of the letter were extravagantly absurd. It referred to certain persons as being “virtually branded” by the Herald “as fraudulent” – as if any brand they could “affix” would be of a permanent character. He would ask the jury to say that the word “they” referred, not to the plaintiff and his partners, but to certain of their employes [employees], who had rendered themselves particularly obnoxious to the staff on the other side. The witnesses called to prove the libel could not agree as to the application of the term “they;” nor was it possible to give a precise interpretation, the whole thing was written in such loose and wretched grammar. Of course it was also in execrably bad taste; but he would ask the jury by their verdict to discourage actions of this kind – they did not reflect credit on those by whom they were instituted. Both parties had been engaged in abuse, and the defendants had received great provocation; but directly they crossed the border, legal action was taken. Three writs were issued and three separate actions were instituted, when one would have been sufficient; merely with the object of multiplying expenses. The action was most oppressive, and was nothing but an attempt to inflict great pecuniary loss on a rival paper. It was only by a very forced construction that the alleged libel could be made to refer to the proprietors of the paper. It was couched in the exaggerated and turbid language always used by these editors, but meant very little. What was meant by having the brand affixed in a regular manner, he did not profess to understand. It seemed to be Mr Kennedy’s misfortune to be connected with a paper not always very reputably conducted. It was in the hands of persons who did not carry it on with any reasonable caution, and who had formerly got him into trouble, without any apparent fault of his own. He would read some extracts from the TELEGRAPH, which had provoked this letter.
Mr Cornford objected to the reading of the papers in question at this stage, as they had only been brought in in mitigation of damages.
His Honor said it appeared to be part of the interchange of articles, and the intention of the letter of Mr Grigg’s, which Mr Wilson proposed to read, appeared to be to detract from the character of the persons conducting the Herald.
Mr Cornford said that if adduced as provocation it must be shown to be libellous.
His Honor would not rule so. It contained statements which the Herald people might consider defamatory.
Mr Wilson said he wished that the plaintiff’s side had fully taken it out in abuse. The jury would then be better able to strike a balance.
His Honor: There can be no set-off of that kind, I think. Mr Justice Blackburn has certainly said that in a case of this kind the jury might fairly consider the degree of respect the plaintiff had shown for the feelings of others; but my view of the matter is, that you must seek your remedy for that abuse, Mr Wilson, and obtain it if you can.
Mr Wilson then read a leading article from the TELEGRAPH of the 22nd December, with a running comment of his own, which caused a good deal of laughter. He following this up by reading an article from the same journal of the 23rd; part of a later article, headed “The Herald’s Ululations,” also a letter signed by Mr Grigg which was published in the TELEGRAPH, directing special attention to Mr Grigg’s remark that certain statements of the Herald regarding its circulation were “deliberate falsehoods.” After this he submitted, the plaintiff had no claim for redress – the parties being in the daily habit of libelling each other. It was a case resembling the Eatanswill editors; except that the latter gentlemen in the end took a preferable course to suing each other for libel. To claim damages was preposterous, especially after the plaintiff’s admission that no damage had been sustained.
His Honor remarked, with reference to what had fallen from Mr Wilson as to the separate actions, that a joint action would only be where joint damages could be shown. To have adopted this course would have been open to great difficulty upon the evidence, as the plaintiff relied on those damages inferred by the law in any case of libel.
Mr Cornford then summed up his case on behalf of the plaintiff. No evidence had been tendered by the other side except certain newspaper extracts in mitigation of damages. The quarrel had been very properly described by his learned friend as a paltry one, and the articles he had read were really nothing but the purest chaff and badinage. There was certainly not a shadow of provocation to induce the defendants to write such a letter as this one complained of. He saw no difficulty as to the construction of the pronoun “they”. In its general sense it included the whole staff, from the proprietors to the printer’s devil; but to prevent any mistake as to the former being intended, they had been mentioned separately and by name. Mr. Grigg’s letter, which had been read, was purely impersonal; having been designated a “mendacious back” by the Herald, he retorted with a tu quoque; but his letter contained no specific charge against any member of the Herald establishment. As to the line of defence taken by Mr. Wilson, he need only say that no man had the right to screen himself from the consequences of his own wrong doing by the plea either of his own insignicanse [insignificance?] or of the immaculate character of the person he had defamed. The complimentary reference of the plaintiff and his partners with which the letter opened, could not be alleged as an extenuation – it was a mere rhetorical trick, by no means uncommon, to height6en by contrast the abuse about to be poured upon them. “Newton, Kennedy, and Knowles,” the letter said, “have always been looked upon as honest and reputable citizens, conspicuous for the scrupulous integrity and sensitive regard for truth.” This, they would observe, was in the past, but what about the present? “It cannot make their position any worse, whatever the arbitrators say about them. They now stand, virtually, branded as fraudulent in the eyes of the public.” It

8   THE WEEKLY MERCURY.

had been pleaded that the letter was hasty, turgid, ambiguous, and stupid. Whatever it might be in some of these respects, he saw in it evidence of having been very deliberately written, and even if it had not been, the writers were bound to take the consequences of their own action. They made no amend, offered no apology, pleaded no justification. If the quarrel was a paltry one, there was all the less justification for so serious an attack on the private character of the plaintiffs.
His Honor summed up the case. It was a matter calling for no professional knowledge; and it was but little he had to say in the way of recommendation or advice. The real ground of the defence was that the alleged libel did not apply to the plaintiff and his fellow-proprietors; but that the staff and employees of the TELEGRAPH were intended. To assist them in coming to a conclusion, he would recommend the Jury to look through the whole series of articles. In Mr Grigg’s letter, in which the term “deliberate falsehood” occurred, no names were mentioned beyond that of the Herald. It was a pity that this course had been departed from – it was so much safer to name the paper than its proprietors. In Parliament it was forbidden for members to address each other, or even allude one to another by name or otherwise than as “the honourable member”, and this rule was found wonderfully conducive to the order of that Assembly. In the same way, if a paper confined its hostility to an abstract being, it might pitch in to its heart’s content; for neither Herald nor TELEGRAPH were made of stuff that could be hurt. He would say nothing of the construction to be placed on the “they” in the letter; the jury had already heard enough on that point, and were no doubt quite able to form their own opinion.  Both sides appeared to agree that the conplimentary [complimentary] reference the beginning of the letter was not intended as irony; but Mr Cornford had emphasised the “have been” and suggested that it was intended to deepen by contrast the sting of the latter remarks. The jury would consider this; for his own part, he thought that to properly bear this interpretation, “had” must be substituted for “have been.” A good deal had been read by Mr Wilson as showing provocation; but the only point which struck him particularly in this way was the expression “deliberate falsehood,” used by Mr Grigg. He saw very little in the other articles. Meagre as his remarks had been, he had little else to say, it was really a case for the jury. He had little or nothing to say as to the question of damages. That no actual damage had been shown was admitted; but he could not agree with Mr Wilson that this would be ground for dismissing this case altogether. This consideration did not debar them from awarding substantial damages; the mere vexation suffered by the man libelled being, in law, quite a sufficient ground for damages of a substantial character.
The jury retired at 3.16 p.m., and were absent till about 5.45 p.m. the foreman, with two jurymen, then entered the Court and informed His Honor that the jury were not unanimous.
His Honor said that if, at the expiration of three hours from the time of retiring, the jury could not agree, a verdict of three-fourths might be taken.
The foreman said that five-sixths of the jury had already agreed.
His Honor said that he could not receive anything but a unanimous verdict until the three hours had elapsed, which would not be till 6.16 p.m.
The jurymen then retired, and after about five minutes the whole jury returned, having agreed upon their verdict.
To the issues 1, 2, and 3, an affirmative answer was given, and to the fourth (the amount of damages) the answer given was “one farthing.”
Mr Cornford asked His Honor to certify costs.
His Honor: It now devolves on me to say whether costs shall follow the nominal verdict. I have to decide whether it was reasonable that this action should have been brought.
The foreman of the Jury here rose, and was apparently about to address the Court.
His Honor: Do you wish to speak as to the question of costs?
The foreman: Yes, your Honor.
His Honor: I cannot take any recommendation from the jury on the subject of costs. I do not think I ought to take advice on the subject. It remains for me to decide whether the grievance was one on which it was reasonable that an action should have been brought. On the whole I have come not without hesitancy to the conclusion that it was not. I think it more than doubtful that the present plaintiff was really aimed at. I think it probable that the hasty scribbler had the staff of the other paper in view, and that possibly Mr Kennedy and the other gentlemen were not really aimed at. I do not think Mr Kennedy’s character has suffered from the publication of the letter of which he complains, and it would have been wiser and better on his part if he had not brought the action. I shall not certify to costs.
The Court then adjourned to next day at 10.30 a.m.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20.
NEAL AND CLOSE V. KEITH AND HUNTER.
His Honor took his seat on the Bench at 10.30.
The following jury was empanelled: T.K. Newton (foreman), A. Kennedy, P. Dinwiddie, W. Douglas, A. Inglis, U. Burke, Elmes, F. Sutton, J. Giblin, W. Wellwood, P. Dolbel, H. Powdrell.
Mr. Wilson and Mr. Bell for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Allan for the defendants.
This was an action brought by the defendants to obtain a title to certain land in Napier, purchased by them in 1868, from Messrs. G. Hunter, and Mrs. Keith, formerly Mrs Blair, and wife of Captain Blair, who was lost on a voyage from the Chatham Islands to New Zealand. From the evidence it appeared that Capt Blair left a Will in which he named Mr G. Hunter and Mrs Blair (now Mrs Keith) sole executors. At the time of Captain Blair’s death he owed Mr Hunter a considerable sum of money, and according to Mr Hunter’s statement, Mrs Blair gave Mr Hunter authority to act as her agent and realise the property, which was done in 1868 by private sale, and by public auction.  On the other side, it was contended that Mrs Blair gave Mr Hunter as her co-executor no authority to sell the estate, but offered to pay interest to Mr Hunter for the money due to him by the late Captain Blair.  Mrs Keith therefore refuses to sign the deed, hence the action.
Mr G. Hunter was examined by Mr Bell, and deposed as to the action he had taken.
He was cross-examined by Mr Allan at great length, more especially as to the authority to realise the property; which the witness stated was immediately after probate was granted. He had not given Mrs Blair a statement of accounts until 1873, nor was he asked for such a statement prior to that time.
Messrs E. Lyndon and Close were then examined as to the sale of the property.
Mr Allen called Mrs Keith for the defence. She deposed that the first time she knew anything of the sale of the property was from Mr Andrew Blake, who had formerly occupied the premises as a bakery in Carlyle street, regarding which the present action was taken. Mr Blake met her in Dunedin two years after the sale, and said “the property had been sold at a great sacrifice.” She never got any statement of accounts from Mr Hunter until she obtained an order to compel him from the Supreme Court.
Mrs. Keith was cross-examined by Mr Wilson. This witness denied having any knowledge of having given any person authority to sell the disputed land. The signature to letters produced was hers, and in her writing.
This letter was addressed to Mr Miller, and had been written by Capt. Campbell, witness’ brother-in-law, and was to the effect that possibly arrangements might be made to sell the property to a Mr A. Blake.
Cumberland McDonnell, a brother to the previous witness, gave evidence to the effect that Mr Hunter had told him on the 12th March, 1868 that he was going to Napier to realise the estate and that there was £1000 borrowed. He offered to pay interest rather than let the property be sacrificed.
The evidence of Alex. McDonnell, brother of the former witness, Captain James Campbell and Mr Miller was then taken.
Counsel on both sides having addressed the jury, His Honor summed up.
The jury, after an absence of about half-an-hour, brought a verdict for the plaintiffs on all the issues.
On the application of Mr Wilson, his Honor certified for a special jury.
The Court was then adjourned until the following morning, at 10.30.

THURSDAY, JUNE 21.

J. D. CANNING V. H. MATUA.
This was a case in which plaintiff sued defendant for the recovery of moneys advanced, the receipt of which had been acknowledged in four dishonoured promissory notes of £300 each.
Messrs. Cornford and Sainsbury for plaintiff; Mr Rees for defendant.
The following special jury was empanelled: – E. Pulford (foreman), J. Chambers, E. W. Knowles, J. Parsons, R. P. Williams, S. W. Elmes, S. G. Brandon, G. T. Seale, H. R. Holder, A. St. C. Inglis, S. R. Dransfield, R. Farmer, T. F. Poole.
The issues were then read to the jury.
Mr. Cornford opened the case for the plaintiff. The issues practically were two – Did the defendant make these promissory notes and did he pay them? To these, however, several had been added which represented the pleas advanced by the defendant. He would not take up their time long on such simple issues; but would produce and identify the notes, and prove that value had been given for them, and that they had never been paid.
A.H. Russell: I am a sheepfarmer. In the year 1870 I was in a partnership with the plaintiff at Oakbourne, near Wallingford, carrying on business as sheepfarmers, under the style of Canning and Russell. I know the defendant Henare Matua. I know his handwriting; the signature on the notes is in his writing. I saw him sign the notes. I received them from him. On the 31st December, 1871, Mr Canning and I dissolved partnership. One of the endorsements on the document produced is in Mr Canning’s handwriting, the other is mine. When I had endorsed them I posted them to Mr. Canning.
Mr Rees asked that all witnesses should leave the Court.
Mr Sainsbury wished an exception to be made in favour of Mr Grindell, who might be required as interpreter.
Mr Rees objected to a gentleman summoned as a witness for the plaintiff acting in that capacity. There were other gentlemen available.
The Registrar stated that Mr F.E. Hamlin, the regular interpreter, was absent. Mr Master had already acted this session.
Mr Rees said he was instructed that Mr Master was not a licensed interpreter; a further that his proficiency in the native language was not sufficient to qualify him.
Both sides having agreed to call Mr J. P. Hamlin, the question arose by whom he should be paid, the Registrar stating that on a former occasion Mr Hamlin, having acted in that capacity, had been unable to obtain his fee.
His Honor said he could not make an order on the Treasury in the matter.
It was ultimately arranged that the plaintiffs should be held primarily responsible for the interpreter’s fee. The witnesses, including Mr. Grindell, then left the Court.
Mr. Cornford saw a number of natives in Court, and presumed that some of them were witnesses.
Mr. Rees said that there was only one native witness in addition to the plaintiff, and he had left the Court.
By Mr. Rees: There was only one sum of £1200 for which I got a promissory note. The date of this agreement corresponds with the promissory notes sued on. I think it refers to the same amount. The money was advanced in cash. It was handed to Henare Matua personally. He alone was present at the time. Part of the sum was paid at his request to Mr Drower; the rest, in cash, handed over to himself. Part was not paid to Hotene. Was not the £1200 paid and lent on the terms contained in this paper? (Mr Cornford objected to the question. Objection overruled.)  To a certain extent it was. The £1200 was understood to be lent on the terms contained in this document. I was a party to that contract. The signature to it is mine.
A long discussion here took place as to the admissibility of evidence relating to this written agreement.
His Honor ultimately decided to admit the document, on the ground that the fourth plea gave plaintiff sufficient notice that it would be relied on.
The memorandum of agreement was then put in and read.
Mr. Rees then continued his cross-examination:  The conditions in that document are those on which the money was lent. I was present at the time. Mr Grindell, interpreter, was present, and Mr Purvis Russell. Hotene was also present but left before the document was signed. The promissory notes were signed during the same interview, 5th August, 1870. The document was drawn on the same day, but I am not quite certain the signatures were then attached – I think they were. I believe the signature of the bill took place after the agreement was signed, and constituted the last part of the transaction. It was between 6 and 7 on a very wet evening when the bills were signed; Hori Ropiha had left an hour or two before. I cannot be sure what time of the day the agreement was signed; I have not so clear a recollection as in the case of the promissory notes. I do not know when those notes were first spoken of. An agreement having been entered into for the payment of this money in 1871, for what purpose did you want these promissory notes? I wanted some security for my money in the meantime. The money was not paid before this agreement was signed, so far as my memory goes. It was not paid before Piora Ropiha had gone away. Were not the bills taken to secure the signature of the natives afterwards to such a deed as this? No they were taken as collateral security for the money. Then if this agreement had been fulfilled, what would have been the position of the bills then? If mortgage had been executed, the bills would not have been enforced.
By Mr Cornford: After this agreement was signed – the following day – Henare Matua applied to me for £1,200. He wanted the money to pay certain debts, principally to Mr Drower. I do not know how much he owed Drower; but believe it to have been between £800 and £900. When the notes were signed, they were held by Purvis Russell, till the following morning. The defendant was anxious to get this money paid at once. Purvis Russell held the notes on behalf of both parties. In paying the money, I set aside Drower’s claims against the natives. Henare Matua was present. The balance I handed over in bank notes. After the money was paid over, Henare Matua did not say anything about it being placed in any one’s hands for a time. I do not understand Maori, but Mr Grindell appeared to me to translate the notes. I know that the land referred to in the agreement passed through the Native Land Court; and that at the request of the natives, it was made inalienable.
John Davis Canning, sworn: I am a sheep farmer, residing at Oakbourne. I was formerly in partnership with the last witness. I am the holder of the promissory notes produced. I received them from Mr Russell. I gave value for these notes to Mr Russell for his half-share – £600. I was not concerned in the immediate negotiations with Henare Matua. I have never received payment for these notes.
By Mr Rees: I was cognizant of the transaction; Mr Russell acted with my authority; but I took no personal share in the negotiations.
James Grindell deposed: In August 1870 I was a licensed interpreter. I remember being employed by Messrs. Canning and Russell. I know the promissory notes produced, and recognise the signature as Henare Matua’s. I saw the signature affixed. I translated the notes to Henare and others before they were signed. I believe he thoroughly understood his liability under those notes.
By Mr Rees: I know the agreement produced; it is my writing, it was signed at the same times as the notes, to the best of my belief. Perhaps not at the same moment, but on the same day and in the same room, I believe. The parties concerned were present, Henua [Henare] Matua, Paoro Ropiha, and Hotene, who is now dead. Hotene was there when the others signed, but refused to sign and went away. I am not sure that Paora and Hotene were present when the notes were signed. Looking at my declaration on the agreement I can swear that I translated it to the natives. I was engaged by Canning and Russell as their interpreter. I did not tell them that on signing it they would get £1200. I told them that, on the completion of the arrangements which they were required to enter into to secure the repayment of the money, it would be paid to them. I not only read, but explained the document. I allude specifically to all the arrangements they were required to enter into. Canning and Russell were in occupation of land belonging to Henare Matua, which had not gone through the Court. Henare and his people were indebted in various sums of money to Mr Drower. Henare had to pay this money, and to obtain it he applied to Canning and Russell. I told Henare that Canning and Russell agreed to advance the money on condition that they gave them a legal lease on the lands after passing through the Court, and a mortgage for the amount advanced, £1200. Henare, being chief of his tribe, took the responsibility. I explained further, that as this agreement was no actual security, it would be necessary for him to give proper security by signing these notes, in the event of anything occurring to prevent this agreement from being carried out. I cannot swear that this latter explanation was made before the agreement was signed. It formed part

THE WEEKLY MERCURY   9

of the explanation I gave Henare Matua, before the bills were signed. I fully explained that the bills were to be used only in the event of his neglecting or refusing to carry out this agreement. Paora was there at the time. I cannot swear that anything was said regarding the promissory notes before this agreement was signed. I can only remember it as part of the same transaction. I cannot swear that anything was said regarding the promissory notes in Paora’s present; but I believe he was there at the time. The explanation I gave Henare about the promissory notes was that they were to be used if he failed to carry out the agreement. Other natives were present at the time. The notes were filled up by Mr. Philip Russell. I do not know the exact time when the notes were signed; but think it was about the middle of the day. So far as I recollect, I have related the whole of the purport of the explanation I gave to Henare Matua and the other natives.
Re-examined by Mr Cornford: Henare Matua made no objection to signing the papers. He was very anxious to get the money.
The Court took the usual afternoon adjournment at this point (1.30 p.m.)
After the evidence was heard of Henare Matua and another native, Mr Rees addressed the Court, and His Honor summed up. The jury gave a verdict on all the issues in favour of Mr Canning.
This concluded the business of the session.

Shipping Intelligence.

PORT AHURIRI.
ARRIVAL.
June.
15 – Jane Douglas, s.s., from Lyttelton
16 – Kiwi, s.s., from Wellington via Castle Point. Passengers – Messrs G. Hunter, W. Hewitt, Allan and Cunningham.
17 – Rangatira s.s. from Poverty Bay. Passengers – Miss Skipworth, Messrs Griffiths, Doon, Daly, Gallagher, Shipton, Cross, 2 natives, and 3 for the South.
17 – Manaia, p.s. from Wairoa. Passengers – Mrs Moloney, Mrs Ingram, Mrs Turner, Messrs Canble, Burton, Fraser, Swan, McMurray, Witty, Brandon, Gillett, Parker, Smith, Gardner, and 3 natives.
17 – Result, s.s. from Wairoa. Passengers – 4 Europeans and 1 native.
17 – Saucy Kate, schooner, from Dunedin.
17 – Southern Cross, s.s., from Auckland. Passengers – Mrs Best, and 2 children, Messrs Winkleson, Parroll, Smith, and Snibburke.
21 – Rangatira, s.s., from Wellington. Passenger – Mr Skelley.
21 – Wanaka, s.s., from Southern Ports. Passengers – Mrs Walcott, the Hon. J. D. Ormond, Messrs D. McLean, Zelman Silves, Levien, Wall, Price, one steerage, and 9 for the North.

DEPARTURES.
June.
15 – Rangatira, s.s., for Poverty Bay. Passengers – Judge Rogan, Messrs Goldsmith (2), Harrison, Berry, Griffiths, Cross, Pilcher, Black, Carroll, Brooking, Blackadder, Hone Piti (Native Advisor), 1 half-caste and 6 natives.
15 – Result, s.s., for Wairoa. Four passengers.
15 – Manaia, p.s., for Wairoa. Passengers – Messrs Swan, Fraser, McMurray, Mackenzie, Ormond, and 9 natives.
17 – Rangatira, s.s., for Wellington. Passengers – Mr and Mrs Oldfield and 2 children, Messrs Maxstead and Grayson, Messrs McLean, Jobson, Orr, Boon, Suffield, Alton, Walsh, and 3 original
18 – Kiwi, s.s., for Wellington
18 – Opotiki, schooner, for Poverty Bay. – one passenger.
19 – Acadia, schooner, for Lyttelton.
20 – Southern Cross, s.s., for Auckland. Passengers – Mrs Hogan, Messrs Davis, Shrewsbury, Fisher, Alexander, Brown, Stewart, Paulson, Eager, and Hennessy, Masters Claude and Horace Murry.
20 – Jane Douglas, s.s., for Gisborne and Auckland. Passengers – Messrs Sturm Oldroyd, Buckland, and Captain Cronin.

The s.s. Jane Douglas returned from Dunedin via Lyttelton, having been 13 days away. She took from here a cargo of wool and tallow for transhipment to the Fern-glen. The Jane Douglas remained four hours at Port Chalmers, and left for Lyttelton. She was twenty-four hours on the passage; took in a cargo of flour, 80 tons, and left on Monday, at half-past ten, and arrived on Thursday at midnight. Captain Fraser reports fine weather from the time he left here and his arrival in Lyttleton [Lyttelton]. Since leaving the latter port, he had a succession of head winds and heavy seas. The whole of her cargo is consigned to Messrs Watt Brothers.
The s.s. Rangatira, Capt. Evans, left for Poverty Bay at 10.30 p.m. on Friday. She had a large number of passengers, besides a tolerable quantity of cargo shipped at Wellington.
The p.s. Manaia and the s.s. Result both left on Friday for Wairoa. The former had a fair complement of passengers, and the latter only a few, but full of cargo.
We understand the s.s. Tairoa is going to make alternative trips up the East and West Coasts in conjunction with the Wanaka.
The s.s. Kiwi, Captain Campbell, arrived in the Bay late on Saturday night, and was brought alongside the Breastwork early on Sunday morning. Captain Campbell called at Castle Point, but was unable to land any cargo, on account of the heavy sea on the beach. She discharged a small quantity of cargo here on Monday, and left about 10 o’clock for Wellington.
The two Wairoa steamers returned on Sunday, having both been in and out of the river, the bar of which is now good; in fact there are two entrances to the river.
The s.s. Rangatira, Capt. Evans, returned from Poverty Bay, at an early hour on Sunday morning. She encountered a strong N.W. breeze as far as Table Cape; thence a light southerly wind to the Napier anchorage.
The schooner Saucy Kate arrived in the bay early on Sunday morning, having had a protracted passage of ten days from Dunedin. She has a full general cargo.
The s.s. Southern Cross, Captain Holmes, made a splendid passage from Auckland of 48 hours. She had not many passengers, but a full general cargo, which was being discharged on Monday. On deck, in addition to her cargo, she had two race horses belonging to J. Watt, Esq., viz: Longlands and Ariel. The Cross will leave on Wednesday, at noon, with sheep for Auckland.
The schooner Samoa arrived at Auckland from Levuka on Wednesday last. She reports the total wreck of the schooner Ida at Roturmah, all hands saved. When the Samoa left Levuka there were there H.M.S. Sapphire, and Reward; the brig Maggie arrived the previous day from Sydney.
The schooner Opotiki having taken on board about 20 tons general cargo, including some goods shipped under bond by Watt Brothers took her departure for Gisborne on Monday evening.
The bay is full of sharks. On Sunday last a dead foal that had been thrown into the channel, and had drifted into the bay at the back of the Spit school house, was a source of contention to about a dozen sharks, who fought furiously for the dainty morsel.
The s.s. Rangatira left Wellington at mid-night on Tuesday, and came up under easy steam, arriving in the bay at 3 on Thursday and was brought to the breastwork at 11.30 a.m. Captain Evans expects the Rangatira will be laid up for alteration to her engines at the end of this month. Her place will be taken by the s.s. Murray.
The s.s. Wanaka arrived in the Bay at 9.45 on Thursday. Captain McGillivray reports heavy weather as far as Cape Turn-again. She has a large quantity of cargo for Napier, which is being put into the Three Brothers and Bella.

POST OFFICE NOTICE.
MAILS CLOSE.
For the United Kingdom, Continent of Europe, &c., via Suez and Brindisi, by every opportunity to Wellington, where the mails close on the 29th inst. Correspondence for this route should leave Napier not later than the 25th instant.
For Fiji, Sandwich Islands, West Indies, America, United Kingdom, Continent of Europe, &c., via San Francisco, on Saturday, the 30th instant, at 9 p.m., per Rotorua.
Money orders and registered letters will close at 5 p.m. newspapers and book packets at 8 p.m. on Saturday the 30th instant.
For the undermentioned places every Monday, and Thursday, at 5.30 a.m. – Clive, Hastings, Havelock, Te Aute, Kaikora, Waipawa, Waipukurau, Danevirk [Dannevirke], Norsewood, Tahoarite, Woodville, Foxton, Palmerston, Wanganui, Taranaki, Wellington and Southern Provinces, &c., Wallingford, Porangahau, Wanui, and Castle Point.
On the other days of the week, mails close as usual, at 6.30 a.m.
J. GRUBB.
Chief Postmaster.

BIRTHS.
McDONELL – At Meanee on June 14th, the wife of D.R. McDonnell, of a daughter.
MASSEY – At Tennyson-street, Napier, on the 17th June, the wife of Mr John Massey, of a daughter.
BEAR – At her residence, Tennyson-street, Napier, on June 19th, the wife of Mr Percival Bear, a son.

MARRIAGES.
FRASER – BROOK, – At St. Andrew’s Church, Auckland, on the 6th June, by the Rev D. Bruce, assisted by the Rev. R.F. Macnicol, the Rev. J.M. Fraser, of Waipawa, Hawke’s Bay, to Ada Elizabeth, only daughter of J. Brook, Parnell.
HAULTAIN – TORR. – At Petane, on the 4th June, by the Rev. G.H. Johnstone, Arthur Terrick, youngest son of the late Major-General Haultain, Royal Artillery, to Louisa Josephine, second daughter of Joseph Torr, Esq., Petane.

JOHN McVAY,
SADDLER & HARNESSMAKER
Hastings-street.
The Cheapest House in the Trade.

H. MONTEITH.
Stock, Land Estate, and General Commission Agent, Waipukurau.
Goods Stored and Forwarded.
Offices and Stores: Near the Railway Station.

The Weekly Mercury
AND
HAWKE’S BAY ADVERTISER.
SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 1877.

[…]

THE fear that was entertained last week by the settlers of Poverty Bay lest their district should again be visited by Te Kooti has passed away. It is difficult to believe that there could have been any real cause for the “scare”, and the first impression created by the news of its existence was that it was got up for the purpose of increasing military expenditure. That many in Gisborne firmly believed there was positive danger we

10   THE WEEKLY MERCURY.

cannot for a moment doubt. The fact of a public meeting being held, and of the determination to raise a volunteer force in the district to meet possible hostile visits from the arch-rebel, is proof sufficient of the alarm that has been created. It appears, also, that telegrams have been forwarded from Gisborne to the Native and Defence Minister, imploring him to state with certainty the whereabouts of Te Kooti. These telegrams were unheeded, and the utmost indignation has been expressed at the neglect of the Ministry. The Wananaga, in its last issue, speaks of a raid by Te Kooti as most improbable. Our contemporary says: – “It is not probable that any such intention is really held by Te Kooti, as Gisborne is in a very different condition now from that in which it found itself in the last war. European inhabitants were then very few and scattered – now they are numerous and gathered in a centre. Then also Te Kooti could reckon on a large following, but now, most probably, only a few desperate men whose lives are already forfeit to the laws would follow his lead. Indeed so completely has he been left, that tribes like the Ngatiporou and Ngatikahungunu of Wairoa, which have been visiting him almost to the present time, have at length severed the cord which bound them to him.

THE effect of the law that granted exceptional privilges [privileges] to the native race in the matter of representation in the General Assembly will be severely felt in the electoral districts of Hawke’s Bay at the next election. The number of natives who have substantiated their claims to vote for the return of members to the House of Representatives for Napier and Clive, is now sufficiently great to turn the scale of any election. The Maori has become a political element in our midst, and one which can no longer be disregarded. The influence the natives will be enabled to exert will be so well worth courting at an election, that it may justly be feared our representation will be more at the mercy of any unscrupulous man, than in the hands of the intelligent portion of the European population. Already, the Hawke’s Bay natives are able to send to Parliament one of their own race as their special representative, their union giving them an immense advantage within the East Coast Maori electorate where tribal jealousies tend to the splitting of votes. They will now be strong enough to control the elections for European representation. The political differences existing among colonists will never, probably, be so laid aside here as to counteract the effect of a block Maori vote. It can never be hoped that the natives of this, or the following generation, will ever be actuated by the same opinions that create amongst us those political parties which bring about contested elections. The European vote is always pretty certain to be split, but that of the Maori will not, nor will it be until the natives have so far advanced in civilisation as to know and feel that the interests of the two races are identical. They are a long way from holding any such opinion at present, and until their education is advanced sufficiently to acquire political information from other sources than that which they now have, it is not likely the natural barrier separating the two races will be thrown down. In the political struggles that must arise between the two, under existing legislation, the ties of race will be very much stronger with the semi-civilised than with the colonists. The natives will be found working as one man for the attainment of an end that may be promised them by any unscrupulous political adventurer who may have gained their confidence.  The danger to us does not lie so much in the fact of Maoris qualifying themselves to hold the privilege of the franchise as it does in the fact of their ignorance exposing them to the machinations of selfish politicians. This danger is heightened by the Maoris having infinitely better opportunities of securing the right to vote than the European can have. Any native is at liberty to build a shanty on tribal land, and the possession of a house of the value of £5 a year qualifies the occupier to have his name on the roll. The practice of our Revision Courts is not so strict, nor the value all Maoris place on an oath so high, as to make it at all a difficult matter for every adult native in this province to secure the right to vote. We make no doubt that the Maoris of Hawke’s Bay will accomplish this in time. Such a very bold commencement has been made this year, that it should open the eyes of our legislators to the danger of placing the franchise in the hands of a people who, from their civilisation, cannot possibly be deemed worthy of so great a privilege. Some alteration is loudly called for in the law that requires no higher qualification for the franchise for an ignorant Maori than it does for the European. No native should be allowed equal electoral privileges to those enjoyed by colonists unless he can read and write the English language with ease, nor should he then till he holds land under a grant from the Crown.

THE Wairoa Council has passed a bye-law prohibiting the importation of rabbits into the County. This regulation may prove either ultra vires, or inoperative, but it shows, at least, that the Council is alive to the ruinous results arising from the rearing of rabbits by careless people. The Councils of Hawke’s Bay and Waipawa might do worse than take a hint from Wairoa in this respect. We have lately heard that some rabbits have been let loose on the Ruataniwha plains, near the edge of the Seventy-Mile Bush, with the object of increasing the variety of the food supply. Such a thoughtless act merits the severest censure. Considering the disastrous effects of the rabbit pest in the Middle Island, some County regulation in districts not yet afflicted might with advantage be passed that would tend to prevent the evil.

[…]

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20.
(Before R. Stuart, Esq., R.M.)

DRUNKENNESS.
John Brown, for the above offence was sent to gaol for 24 hours in default of paying a fine of ten shillings.
John Golding made his fourth appearance within six days on the charge of drunkenness. An information was laid against him for “habitual drunkenness” and he was convicted, and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment with hard labor.

ASSAULT.
Smith v. Pyne. – An information for assault and battery. The hearing of this case was adjourned until Monday, the 25th instant.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

THE LIBEL CASE.
SIR, – This morning’s Herald states (editorially) that the Judge’s summing up in the above case was “grossly misrepresented” in your columns, and that the words “hasty scribbler” were put into His Honor’s mouth. In reply, I need not say more than that the report of those remarks was printed exactly as furnished by me, and that the expression objected to occurs in my notes, taken at the time.
The paragraph in question might almost have been written to justify His Honor’s epithet when it goes on to refer to the verbatim report in yesterday’s Herald. While no doubt correct as a condensed abstract of the Judge’s remarks, that report is obviously nothing more, being given in the third person. – I am, &c.,
R. COUPLAND HARDING.
June 21, 1877.

[…]

THE WEEKLY MERCURY   11

[…]

12   THE WEEKLY MERCURY.

[…]

Mr. George Faulknor has recently turned out of his coach factory a handsome double seated brougham, that was manufactured for Mr. Berry, who purposes to reserve it as much as possible for the use of private families. This carriage reflects the highest credit on Mr Faulknor’s [Napier] factory; it is fully equal to the best workmanship we have seen in the colony.

Mr N. Jacobs has just imported, from Paris, a novel musical instrument called a harmonic organ. In outward appearance it is a harmonium, of four octaves, and three stops, and can be played in exactly the same way as one of those instruments, but, in addition, by sliding in barrels, it can be played as a hand organ, the wind being supplied by the action of the pedals. There are six barrels belonging to the organ, each capable of playing six airs. The tone is extremely sweet and powerful. The instrument is a handsome piece of furniture, and would be a valuable acquisition in any household.

THE WEEKLY MERCURY   13

[…]

14   THE WEEKLY MERCURY.

[…]

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

THE BOOT ROBBERY.
SIR, – In the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday, a case was heard before R. Stuart, Esq., R.M. against James Kelly for stealing a pair of boots, and for which the prisoner pleaded guilty, but excused himself that he was drunk at the time, and for this two-fold crime he was dismissed with a caution. Now, I deny the man was drunk and not responsible for his actions. He was first seen cautiously making towards my shop, lift the boots from the hook, and decamp. I immediately pursued him and found the boots under his coat. I have recently, on two different occasion, had boots stolen from my window, valued at twenty-six shillings each pair, of which I gave information to the police at the time. Now, Mr Editor, could you inform me whom I should appeal to for redress should James Kelly or any other person be discovered stealing boots from me again? – I am, &c.,
THOS. WILLIAMS.
Napier, June 15, 1877.

SELLING AMMUNITION TO NATIVES.
SIR, – After the late news from Poverty Bay, I think it is high time that the sale of ammunition to Maori’s should be put a stop to. Now to my certain knowledge, they can and do purchase as much as they require, and I have been informed from very good authority without a license from either a Magistrate or officer of the Customs. A form of law is necessary for a European before he can obtain the same.
By inserting the above you will greatly oblige.
AN OUT-SETTLER.
[Our correspondent must have been misinformed. If he is certain of the truth of his information it is his duty to lay the matter before the proper authorities. ED. – W.M.]

MAHOMET.
SIR, – I cannot allow the unprovoked and cowardly attack made by the Revd. D’Arcy Irvine, in his letter to the Herald this morning, on the memory of one of the greatest men the world has produced, to go unchallenged. I have characterised Mr. Irvine’s letter as cowardly, and for this reason, that, relying on the prejudices of a Christian community, he knows no one of good taste would employ the same ridicule against the Bible which he so freely uses against the Koran. I need say nothing further on this part of the subject; Mr Irvine’s knowledge of Scripture will supply him with abundance of stories upon which he can exercise his humour, without going to the Koran to ridicule man’s efforts to realise the idea of perfect beauty, perfect happiness, that Heaven is believed to offer to us hereafter.
Let me turn to Mahomet, and quoting from Winwood Reade’s “Martyrdom of Man,” give a description of “the prophet” whose teachings turned millions from the worship of wood and stone, to a belief in a spiritual Creator, the unseen God to whom all Arabs now pray, as did their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. “Mahomet was a poor lad subject to a nervous disease which made him at first unfit for anything except the despised occupation of the shepherd.” In the Rhamadan, “a month held sacred by the ancient Arabs,” Mahomet and his wife “used to live in a cave outside the town, passing the time in prayer and meditation. The disease of his childhood returned upon him in middle age; it affected his mind in a strange manner, and produced illusions on his senses.”  He was continually crying out to God for help. “He pondered on the religious legends of the Jews, which he had heard related on his journeys, at noonday beneath the palm tree by the well mouth, at night by the camp fire; and as he looked and thought, the darkness was dispelled, the clouds dispersed, and the vision of God in solitary grandeur rose up within his mind; there came upon him an impulse to speak of God, then came upon him a belief that he was a messenger of God sent on earth to restore the religion of Abraham, which the Pagan Arabs had polluted with their idolatry, the Christians in making Jesus a divinity, the Jews in corrupting their holy books.”
Such was Mahomet; and who will dare to deny that he did not fearlessly fulfil the task which he firmly and conscientiously believed had been allotted him? To speak of him in derision, is to exhibit crass ignorance; to ignore the mighty work he performed, is to rob humanity of the glory of one of its greatest efforts to realise the sublime. – I am &c.,
NAPIER.
Napier, June 16, 1877.

HAWKE’S BAY COUNTY COUNCIL.
MONDAY, JUNE 18.
The Council held its adjourned meeting at 11 o’clock today.
Present: – Messrs. Tiffen (Chairman), Williams, Bennett, Brathwaite, Kinross, and Colonel Whitmore.
The minutes of the previous meetings (special and ordinary) were read and confirmed.
Correspondence and reports of the Public Works Committee, and of the Engineer, were laid on the table: also a letter from the Colonial Treasury pointing out discrepancies between the returns furnished by the Road Boards and those forwarded by the County Council. The reply to this latter communication was to the effect that the Council had no authority over the Road Boards in this respect.
The Council then went into Committee to consider the Public Works Committee’s report.
1.   The report recommended an expenditure of £25, as per Mr Bold’s report, on the Waitangi bridge.
Carried.
2.   That Mr Bold be instructed to take the necessary steps to strengthen the Ngaruroro bridge.
Carried.
3.   As no tender had been received for the supply of timber, Mr Bold be instructed to obtain that which is required.
Carried.
4.   That the Governor be memorialised to give the Council the necessary power to stop the flow of water from artesian wells over the Taradale-road.
Carried.
5.   That a grant of £15 be made for the purpose of deepening the Taipo creek.
Carried.
6.   That the road overseer be instructed to clear out the water tables, and metal certain portions of the Puketapu road.
Carried.
The Chairman, on the motion of Mr Bennett, resumed the Chair, and the Public Works Committee’s report was adopted.
In reply to Mr Williams, the Chairman said instructions had been given to Mr Bold to have the road from Meanee bridge to the race course put in repair.
Mr Bennett moved that Mr Neagle’s application for permission to erect a slaughter yard at Taradale, on suburban section, No. 7, be granted.
Colonel Whitmore seconded the motion which was agreed to.
A communication was read from the Resident Magistrate at Taupo which pointed out that Mr Sutherland, of Tarawera, was paying £30 for a publican’s license, whereas all the other publicans only paid £5.
Colonel Whitmore said that the £5 licensed houses, though in Hawke’s Bay County, were in the Auckland provincial district. He thought the Council had no jurisdiction in the matter.
Mr Bennett moved that Mr Tracey’s salary be augmented to £135, which would include travelling allowance.
Mr Kinross seconded the motion.
Colonel Whitmore objected to the increase on principle.
Motion was put and carried.
Col. Whitmore moved that Major Roberts, R.M. at Taupo, be informed that the Council have no power to alter the existing licensing arrangements.
This was seconded and carried.
In reply to Mr Brathwaite, the Chairman said the dog tax would be collected by the constables.
Colonel Whitmore moved that the Chairman be requested to apply to the Inspector of Armed Constabulary to station a member of the Force at Clive. At present the duty of constable was performed by a local shopkeeper.
Mr Kinross seconded the motion, which was agreed to.
Mr Williams moved the adoption of Mr Bold’s report on the Omahu bridge, involving an outlay of £50.
Seconded by Mr Bennett and carried.
The Council then adjourned.

[…]

THE WEEKLY MERCURY.   15

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
FRIDAY, JUNE 15.
(Before R. Stuart, Esq., R.M.)

A DISORDERLY CHARACTER.
John Golding was charged, on the information of Constable Black, with being drunk and disorderly. He pleaded guilty, but promised reformation. It being a second offence, he was fined 10s, or if he preferred not to pay the fine, he was to be allowed board and lodgings free for 24 hours in Mr. Miller’s establishment.

LARCENY.
Frank Hyde, a carpenter, was charged with having stolen from the prosecutor, William Phillips, of the Karemu [Karamu?] on the 12th day of June, the sum of £2.
William Phillips deposed that he resided in a whare on the Karemu. On Tuesday he had £3 in a match-box, and took £1 out, and went to Hastings in company with the prisoner. They returned next night, and on the following morning he put the box containing the money under his mattrass [mattress], and went away. On his return he found his money gone, and the prisoner also had started away. He was told by the constable, that the prisoner had changed two £2 notes at Havelock, which he believed to be his money.
William Plant deposed as to having given the prisoner 6s prior to the alleged robbery, because prisoner stated he was hard up.
The mounted constable at Havelock deposed to having arrested the prisoner on the charge. When arrested, prisoner said he was sorry for what had occurred, and would give £3 to have the affair hushed up. He found the prisoner had changed £2 at Mr. Stuart’s hotel, at Havelock.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he had earned the money he spent at Abraham’s.
His Worship sentenced the prisoner to two months’ imprisonment with hard labor.

ASSAULT.
Peter Furze was charged with having assaulted, on Saturday last, Mr. William Orr, at Clive.
Mr. Lascelles appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Rees for defendant.
William Orr deposed to having seen defendant on Saturday last. Defendant said he was going to cut down the fence. Defendant then went away, and returned with an axe in his hand. The witness then went and placed himself alongside the fence to prevent it, and caught hold of defendant who told him to get out of his way. He then threw off his vest, and placed himself in an attitude to fight him. He then commenced to cut the fence down.
Cross-examined by Mr. Rees: The fence had been broken down, but he (witness) had it put up again. He did not lay hands first on the defendant. The reason the defendant cut the fence down was because he had impounded one of his horses. The fence was not across a road, it was a street.
James Nicholls, examined by Mr. Lascelles, stated that he was present at the time. Mr Orr first collared Furze before Furze pushed him. He was quite sure of that. He did not know why Mr Lascelles put these questions to him because Mr. Lascelles was present at the time, and knew all about it. (Laughter),
His Worship said it appeared to him a trivial case, and he would therefore at once dismiss it.

CIVIL CASES.
Thirteen summonses for debt had been issued for hearing to-day as also a couple of judgment summonses. Of the first, four had been settled out of Court, and in three others judgment had been confessed. The following cases came before the Court: –
Moore v. Baxter. – Claim £7 5s 1d. Judgment for plaintiff with 14s costs, to be paid by instalments of 10s per month, commencing on 9th July.
Hawker v. Spence. – Claim £18. Action of trover. Judgement for £12 and £2 18s costs.
Jessop v. Hastings. – £1 5s 6d. Judgement for plaintiff  (by default) for amount claimed, and costs 12s.
Gillespie v. Tracey. – Claim £3 11s 3d. Judgment for plaintiff (by default) for amount claimed, and costs and expenses 17s.
Graham v. Anderson, – £13 15s for rent. Judgment (by default) for plaintiff, with 9s costs.
Jessop v. Cartwright and Another. – Claim of £3 for four week’s horse hire at 15s per week. Judgment for plaintiff for £3, and costs 9s.

JUDGMENT SUMMONS.
Gillespie v. Murrow. – Defendant having filed a declaration of insolvency, – plaintiff did not proceed any further in the matter.
Langley and Newman v E. Butcher. – Defendant did not appear to the summons. Order was made that defendant pay the amount and costs (in all £1 14s 6d) by the 22nd instant, or be committed to prison for one month.

MONDAY JUNE 18.

DRUNK AND DISORDERLY,
John Golding, charged with the above offence, was fined and paid the sum of 20s. This was his third appearance within five days.

BREACH OF MUNICIPAL BYE LAWS.
James Greenaway, for keeping and depasturing four cows on unclosed land within the Borough, was fined 10s with costs 9s.

ALLEGED LARCENY.
James Kelly, on suspicion of stealing a set of sleeve links of the value of ten shillings, the property of Mr Boylan, was remanded until to morrow, to admit attendance of a necessary witness.

TUESDAY, JUNE 19.
(Before J.A. Smith, Esq., and Edward Lyndon, Esq., J.P.s)

DRUNKENNESS.
John McLean, for the above offence, was fined and paid the minimum sum of five shillings.

LARCENY.
James Kelly, charged with the theft of one set of gold sleeve-links, valued at ten shillings, the property of Mr. M. Boylan, was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, with hard labor.

BREACH MUNICIPAL BYE LAWS.
An information against David Earl Lindsay, for obstructing a footpath in the Shakespeare road, within the Borough of Napier, by placing certain goods, namely, bundles of shingles, thereon, was dismissed with a caution, and an intimation that for the future persons charged with this offence, if convicted would be muleted in such penalty as the law allows.

CIVIL CASES.
Eleven civil cases were on the cause list for hearing to-day. In four cases, at the suit of the trustees in the estate of R. McRae, of Havelock, there being no proof before the Court of the service of the summonses, the date of hearing was enlarged until the 13th July.
In two other cases, the amounts with costs had been paid, and three plaints were withdrawn. The following came before the Court, and were dealt with as under: –
O’Brien v. Thos. Chase. – Claim of £4 5s 11d for goods supplied. Defendant did not appear. The claim having been proved on oath, judgment was given (by default) for plaintiff for the amount claimed, and 9s costs.
B. Smith v. Grindell: – Claim of £9 8s, for professional services as architect in June 1875. Defendant’s evidence had been taken in Wellington, under the provisions of the Act of 1870, and was read by the Clerk of the Court. The evidence of plaintiff (whose case conducted by Mr Lee) having been taken, as also of D.E. Lindsay, his witness, the Court gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, and £1 15s costs, including solicitor’s fee.

[…]

16   THE WEEKLY MERCURY.

[…]

FOR SALE BY TENDER.
THE STOCK-IN-TRADE, lately the property of N.P. PLANTE & CO., Drapers and Clothiers, Napier, Hawke’s Bay.
The Stock sheets to be seen on the Premises every day.
The highest or any tender not necessarily accepted. Tenders will be received on the Premises at Napier, up to the 1st July next.
OWEN & CRAHAM,
Per Alex Snedden.
Fapier [Napier], June 16, 1877.

TO ARCHITECTS REQUIRING PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE.
DESIGNS prepared from rough sketches.
Plans colored or etched in first style
J. SPARROW,
Architect and Building Surveyor,
Waipukurau.

[Advertisement]
BEWARE OF VILE AMERICAN COUNTERFEITS.
OF
HOLLOWAY‘S PILLS AND OINTMENT. I most respectfully take leave to call the attention of the inhabitants of Australasia to the fact that Messrs. Henry Curran and Co., Wholesale Druggists, of New York, have agencies in various parts, and that their Travellers are going all over the country vending spurious Imitations of my Pills and Ointment, which they make in New York, and which bear in some instances their trade mark thus
Whilst on other labels of this trash it is omitted , the better to deceive you, but the words ‘New York’ are retained. Much of this fictitious stuff is sold in the Auction Rooms of Sydney and elsewhere, and readily finds its way into the back settlements. These are vile frauds, as I do not allow my medicines even to be sold in any part of the United States; they are only made by me at 533, Oxford Street, London.
The same people are circulating a report that my business is about to be formed into a Company which is UTTERLY FALSE.
I most earnestly appeal to that sense of British justice which I feel sure I may venture upon asking my kind countrymen and countrywomen in their distant homes, to assist me, as far as may lay in their power, in denouncing this shameful American Fraud, by cautioning their friends lest they he duped into buying villainous compounds styled “Holloways Pills and Ointment” with any New York label thereon.
Each Pot and Box of the Genuine Medicines bears the British Government Stamp, with the words “HOLLOWAY’S PILLS AND OINTMENT, LONDON.” engraved thereon. On the labels is the address, 533 Oxford street, London, where alone they are manufactured.
Signed,
THOMAS HOLLOWAY,
LONDON, Feb. 15, 1796

[Advertisement]
SAMSON FENCE WIRE. – This is an entirely new article, and is fast superseding the old style. Five Wires weigh Ten cwt. per mile, and costs in Melbourne £12 10s, versus Seventeen cwt. ordinary wire costing £14 10s (the relative cost will be the same at the principal ports of Australasia) with the advantage of having Seven cwt. less to pay carriage for. Over 1,000 TONS sold by one firm last year, giving unbounded satisfaction. Send for full descriptive circular with innumerable testimonials from leading colonists, and judge for yourselves. McLEAN BROS., and RIGG, Importers, and General Ironmongers, Melbourne.

[Advertisement]
GRATEFUL – COMFORTING.
EPPS’S COCOA.
BREAKFAST.
“By a through knowledge of the natural laws which govern the operations of digestion and nutrition, and by a careful application of the fine properties of well-selected cocoa, Mr. Epps has provided our breakfast tables with a delicately flavoured beverage which may save us many heavy doctors’ bills. It is by the judicious use of such articles of diet that a constitution may be gradually built up until strong enough to resist every tendency to disease. Hundreds of subtle maladies are floating around us ready to attack wherever there is a weak point. We may escape many a fatal shaft by keeping ourselves well fortified with pure blood and a properly nourished frame.” – See in the Civil Service Gazette.
Made simply with boiling water or milk.
Sold only in pockets (tins for abroad), labelled: –
JAMES EPPS & Co.,
HOMEOPATHIC CHEMISTS,
48, THREADNEEDLE STREET, and 170, PICCADILLY,
WORKS, EUSTON ROAD AND CAMDEN TOWN
LONDON.

[Advertisement]
GORDON AND GOTCH
I21 HOLDBORN HILL, LONDON;
and at
SYDNEY AND MELBOURNE.
ADVERTISEMENTS inserted in English, Continental, and American Newspapers, Newspapers, Periodicals, Magazines, Books, and Stationery supplied with accuracy and punctuality, and at the lowest prices.
Proprietors of Newspapers furnished with Paper, Ink, and every requisite connected with the printing business.
Indents through the Sydney and Melbourne houses, and Commissions executed quickly and economically generally.

RELIABLE INDEMNITY
Against Fire and Marine Losses secured to Policyholders in the
NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE COMPANY,
Representing One Million Sterling of Capital, with unlimited liability of Shareholders.
Liberal Terms and Prompt Settlement of Losses characteristic features of the Company.
Forms of Proposal and all information may be obtained from
SMITH & CO., Waipukurau;
W. RATHBONE, Waipawa;
W. G. CRAWFORD, Kaikora;
GEORGE BEE, Havelock;
KNIGHT BROTHERS, Hastings;
ELDRED BECK, West Clive;
JOHN BARRY, Taradale;
ROBJOHNS, IRVINE & CO., Spit;
W.F. SHAW, Wairoa;
or from
A. LESLIE CAMPBELL,
Agent for Hawke’s Bay.
Office – Beach end of Emerson street.

WANTED KNOWN – That Printing is executed at the DAILY TELEGRAPH office below Wellington Prices.

[Advertisement]
CURE FOR   ALL NEVER DESPAIR
THE GREATEST WONDER OF MODERN TIMES!
HOLLOWAY’S PILLS
Persons suffering from weak or debilitated constitutions will discover that by the use of this wonderful medicine there is “Health for all.” The blood is the fountain of life, and its purity can be maintained by the use of these pills.
SIR SAMUEL BAKER,
in his work entitled “The Nile Tributaries in Abbyssinia,” says, “I ordered the dragoman Mahomet to inform the Fakey that I was a Doctor, and that I had the best medicines at the service of the sick, with advice gratis. In a short time I had many applicants, to whom I served out a quantity of Holloway’s Pills. These are most useful to an explorer, as possessing unmistakable purgative properties they create an undeniable effect upon the patient, which satisfies him of their value.”
SIMPLE, SAFE, AND CERTAIN!
HOLLOWAY’S OINTMENT
Is a certain remedy for bad legs, bad breasts, and ulcerations of all kinds. It acts miraculously in healing ulcerations, curing skin diseases, and in arresting and subduing all inflammations.
MR. J.T. COOPER,
in his account of his extraordinary travels in in China, published in 1871, says – “l had with me a quantity of Holloway’s Ointment.  I gave some to the people, and nothing could exceed their gratitude; and, in consequence, milk, fowls, butter, and horse feed poured in upon us until at last a teaspoonful of Ointment was worth a fowl and any quantity of peas, and the demand became so great that I was obliged to lock up the small remaining stock.”
Sold by all Chemists and Medicine Vendors throughout the World.
On the Label in the address, 533, Oxford-street, London, where alone they are manufactured.
BEWARE OF ALL COMPOUNDS STYLED
HOLLOWAY’S PILLS AND OINTMENT
With a “New York” Label.

[Advertisement]
SHEEP SHEARS. JOHN SORBY & SONS,
Spital Hill, Sheffield, direct the attention of Flock Owners and Shearers to their Improved New Pattern, No. 69 Shear, which for quality, style, finish, and adaptability to the requirements of the Australian and New Zealand markets, cannot be surpassed. The main features are – great extra width of steel in the blades, accurately ground, long shanks with narrow grip. Procurable at the leading Ironmongers’ Warehouses throughout Australasia.
Look for this Trade Mark in blade.

THE
WEEKLY MERCURY
AND
Hawke’s Bay Advertiser,

TERMS OF ADVERTISING AS PER SCALE.
Standing Advertisements for Three, Six or Twelve Months can be arranged for at a Liberal Discount.
Notice to discontinue advertisements (unless where number of insertions is mentioned on original order) must be forwarded, in writing, addressed to the Manager.

LIST OF AGENTS
NAPIER   COLLEDGE & CRAIG, Hastings-st
W. DENHOLM, Port Ahuriri
MEANEE – J.C. SPEEDY.
TARADALE – J. BARRY.
CLIVE – J. BECK.
HASTINGS – R. SOMERVILLE
HAVELOCK – S. STONE
KAIKORA – J. NICHOLSON
WAIPAWA   E. BIBBY
DUNCAN & CO.
WAIPUKURAU – MESSRS. SMITH & CO
WAIROA – T. PARKER

TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION
£ s
Per Quarter, if paid in advance   0 6
Per Quarter, if booked   0 7
Per Annum, if paid in advance.   1 6
Per Annum, if booked   1 10

Printed and published by EDWARD HENDERSON GRIGG, for the Proprietors, at the Mercury Office, Tennyson-street, Napier, Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand.
SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 1877.

Original digital file

HardingR741_Weeklymercuryjune231877.pdf

Year published

23 June 1877

Format of the original

Newspaper

Subjects

Tags

Accession number

741/1365/42740

Do you know something about this record?

Please note we cannot verify the accuracy of any information posted by the community.

Supporters and sponsors

We sincerely thank the following businesses and organisations for their support.