“ADJOURNED TO CLYDE.”
To the Editor of the Cromwell Argus.
Sir, abuses, I claim your insertion of the following ; of course, you are aware of the facts, but probably your readers may not be. In the case of Francis v. Kidd, I would like to know why the case was adjourned from Cromwell to Clyde, and then back again from Clyde to Cromwell ? Was it done by the solicitors to increase costs, or what ? Is solicitors'and magistrates' convenience to be studied, to the total disregard of everyone else's time? Mine is equally as valuable as either of tbeir's. A ltbough not making as much money, I have far more depending on me for support ; and there are others in a sim ; 'ar predicament. In this case, there were not less than seven persons dragged down to Clyde, at a cost of not less than £2 each ; then again, two days wasted in Cromwell, at a cost to sire persons of £1 a day each ; making £2C> in all. lam sure I have not overstated the loss. If the complainant's solicitor was not prepared to go on with the case, why not wait till he was? Very nice amusement, I have no doubt, for them ! but they forget that what is piny to the cat is death to the mouse.—Hoping the public will set their face against the recurrence of such a thing for the future, 1 am, &c, John Mahsu.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CROMARG18720611.2.15.2
Bibliographic details
Cromwell Argus, Volume III, Issue 135, 11 June 1872, Page 6
Word Count
240“ADJOURNED TO CLYDE.” Cromwell Argus, Volume III, Issue 135, 11 June 1872, Page 6
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in