MR TURTON AND MR BARKY.

Cromwell Argus, Volume VI, Issue 298, 28 July 1875, Page 6

MR TURTON AND MR BARKY.

To the Editor of the Cromwell Argus. Sir,—l shall feel much obliged by your insertion of the enclosed letter, as Mr Warren, the proprietor of the Wakatip Mail, to whom I took it myself, after distinctly promising to insert it in the last issue of his paper, (together with an apology from himself for having published Mr Barry's letter of the 15th instant,) has failed to keep his promise. After the curious behaviour of Mr Warren throughout this matter, I fail to feel any assurance that he will publish my letter at all. In the Mail which was to have contained my letter, and Mr Warren's expression of regret at its cause, appears instead a joyous paragraph from " we," expressing gladness and jubilance at the prospect of my bringing an action for libel against the Mail This prospect only exists in the excited imagination of Mr Warren, as no notice of action has ever been served by me upon him.—l am, &c, Wesley To-ri-on. Queenstown, July 23, 1875. [enclosure.] To the Editor of the Wakatip Mail. Sir,—May I ask the favor of space in your columns, in which to refute certain statements made by Mr William Jackson Barry, in a letter written by him to the Wakatip Mall of the 15th instant. I pass over the opening and closing insolences of the letter, as utterly beneath my notice, and proceed to remark on a few of Mr Batry's misstatements. In the first place, it is quite true that 1 have collected a few of Mr Barry's book debts, but have on more than one occasion given him a memorandum of the amounts received by me. The sum total received just about covers the expense of collection. With reference to the Barry-Powell cases, my relations with Mr Bany were simply those which ordinarily exist between solicitor and client. It must be apparent to everyoue that there are many things which pass between a solicitor and his client that I am precluded, as a professional man, from publishing in the columns of a public journal. 1 will, therefore, merely state that which is a matter of public no'-oriety,—that when the case for £2OO was called on in the District Court, Mr Barry did not put in an appearance, and was consequently nonsuited with costs. As regards the information for perjury laid by Mr Barry, I beg to state that it was done contrary to my advice, and that 1 did not instigate Mr Barry to lay the information. 1 declined to appear for Mr Barry, and he then applied to the police to ass'sfc him in the prosecution. The fraud summons referred to I had nothing whatever to do with, nor did Mr Barry ever mention the subject to me.' The insinuations which are scattered broadcast throughout Mr Barry's letter will, I amcontident, appear to the vast majority of his fellow-citizens simply as incontrovertible evidence of his determination not to uu'lerstand or appreciate those relations which exist between honorably-minded men, either in public or private life. In conclusion, I beg to state that this is the first and last time I intend to take any notice of Mr Barry's statements concerning myself.— Yours obediently, Wesley Turton.