WATERTON DOG CASE.
To the Editor.
Sib, —Would you allow me space in your journal for a few lines concerning the above case. It is the second and last I shall trouble you with. I see in your correspondence oftheSfch iuafc., a letter signed “William Fleming,” in which he attempts to make the statements of my first letter false. He flatly denies my claiming the dog previous to sending him a bill and summons. I would ask Mr. Fleming can he deny my letter (which was produced iu Court and published in the Ashburton papers), which I sent to him on the 3rd March last, demanding ray dog. That was eight days before he got the summons. I question the sanity of the man who flatly denies a statement that bears such an undeniable proof. As to the statements made in my first letter and contradicted by him, I again maintain every word true, and if called on can prove the same, and I defy him in truth to contradict me.—l am, &c., Robert Anderson.
[This correspondence is of no interest to any one but the correspondents themselves, and must now cease.— Ed. A.(?.]
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18800420.2.11.1
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 89, 20 April 1880, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
194WATERTON DOG CASE. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 89, 20 April 1880, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in