MR. ISITT AND THE REV. HOWARD ELLIOTT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 24, 23 October 1917, Page 6

MR. ISITT AND THE REV. HOWARD ELLIOTT

Sir,—The following inaccuracies occur in Mr. Xlliotl's letter in your issue of EViday last. Mr. Elliott stales that the censorship of Box 912 was established on March 23, 1917; it was established on December 16, ISIIC. Mr. Eliiott again denies tliafc his letters were fabrications. In his sworn evidence Mr. Elliott admitted that they were writeen and signed with bogus names at his dictation, and "were framed on certain reports received from various sources." Mr. Elliott concocted some of these letters froru slanderous letters and wild and cruel yarns told him by people whose names he will not give to the police. Suppose Homo man dictates a letter and posts it, founded on statements repeatedly made about myself, "Is it true that the member for Christcluirch North drinks whisky on the slj and has shares in a brewery?" and signs it Mary Spriggs, J'otone. Is that letter a fabrication? If so, Mr. Elliott's letters with wliicli I have dealt are gross fabrications.

Mr. Elliott says "the letters were never intended >J>y me for publication." According to Ins own statement, Mr. Elliott wrote them on the suggestion of his solicitor. Mr. Ostler commenced to read them in open court, and only desisted on the protest of Mr. Gray (the opposing counsel) and by command of the JlagisIrate. Mr. Elliott made no protest. Mr. Elliott read some of the worst of these letters at a public meeting in Auckland, and they were published in the Auckland "Free Press" account of the meeting, Mr. Elliott's statement that I have published them is not true. I havo privately sont typed conies to the Rev. Dr. Gibb, the Rev. Mr. Gray, and three other responsible men.

Mr. Elliott says': "To sliow how unreliable Mr. Isitt is even in his quotation from the evidence referring to tlio letters, lie quotes mo as saying they contain a substratum of truth which, if occasion arise, could be proved. Now this statement referred definitely and exclusively to the case of ... . drunkenness. and not to the other letters at all. Evidently Mr. Isitt is more intent on justifying himself than doing mo justice."

Now, sir. I will ask your readers tn consider the brazen plTronton- of this charge in the lirrht ot the following extract from Mr. Elliott's sworn evidence:Mr. Gray: Did you consider yon were performing any useful or good purpose in inventing—forging—bogus letters addressed to yourself, or your committee which your counsel produced vesterday? Mr. Elliott: They wero not bogus letters, in that the inquiries made in those letters were not'mere fie, ments. We have reasonable grounds for believing that in every ease in those inquiries there is a substratum of truth which, if occasion arises, may be proved.

Comment is needless; I thanlc you for publishing this letter, but whatever Mr. .Elliott may'now say I shall not subject inyselr to tho unpleasantness oi auy further correspondence with one who may again make his reply tile vehicle for inferential slander on the memory of an innoccnt woman.—l am, etc LEONARD M. iSITT. October 20.