THE BOOKS PEOPLE READ.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3263, 16 December 1881, Page 3

THE BOOKS PEOPLE READ.

Millions of people read quite complacently works whose literary merits are so small that they are intolerable to any who have the least sense of style. Yefc this defect does not affect their popularity. Some men write with the end of a broomstick, some with a gold pen, some with an etchor's needle. The broomstick man is perhaps the most popular. Then people read books just as they look at a picture or go to a play, " for the story." That is all they care about. The story read they dismiss it from their thoughts. There wa9 once a French dramatist, Alexander Hardy by name, who knew this so well that when he constructed a new play he contented himself with devising story, situation, and tableaux, leaving his actors to supply the words. Who cared about the words ?_ Of course the heroine screamed, and the villain swore, and the funny man dropped the plates —all in the right place. What more did the people want ? And what more, indeed, do they want now ? Overmuch reading and promiscuous reading are great hindrances to the formation of a critical habit. '1 he critic does not gulp; he discriminates between Hamburg sherry and the true wine of Xeres by tbe aid of a wine-glass not a tumbler. Rut the omnivorous reader is like unto one who takes his draught from a quart pot. Fancy a city dinner afc which pea-soup, tripe and onions, fried fish, roast pork and stuffing, raw onions, and such viands were sewed up side by side with the most delicate preparations, the sole a la maitre d'hotel, the cotelette, the ris de reau, the mayonnaise, where thick-sugared stout was handed round with ilohnnisberg, Chafceou Yquem, and Piper tres sec ; fancy the guests indiscriminately taking one after the other, without discernment, enjoying one quite as much as the other, with a leaning in the direction of roast pork and stout —that, if you please, is a fair example of the intellectual meal taken continually by the all-devouring reader. He reads everything ; he reads whatever is set before him ; he reads without consideration; he reads without criticism ; all styles are alike to him j he is never greatly delighted, and seldom offended. —Temple Bar.

A special jury was sworn in to hear the case, Mr Wardrop bein-z appointed foreman. His Honor said the onus of proof in this case would fall upon the defendant. Mr Travers then proceeded at considerable length to state the grounds of defence. Frederick Sutton, being sworn, said : I am the plaintiff in this case. In April of the year 1876 I was the owner of several blocks of land acquired from the natives at Ngawbakatatara. There was a doubt as to whether one of the grantees was or wa3 not in infancy at the time of alienation. There was a doubt hanging over that interest. I sold my interest in the land to Mr Douglas. The negotations between us had been in existence for some time. At one period they were carried on exclusively between the defendant and myself. I then asked £25,000 as the basis of a price for the land as it stood. We afterwards came to a verbal arrangement that the price should be £20,000. Some difficulty arose about the matter through objections raised by the late Mr James Watt, who was one of the firm of Watt Brothers, merchants. I then offered to allow Mr Watt to take a first mortgage over the property at £15.000, and I would take a second for £5000. Mr Douglas at that time told me that the matter was entirely in Mr Watt's hands, and that I would have to arrange with him. I had negotiations with Mr Watt, and subsequently further negotiations with Mr .Douglas. Mr Douglas always expressed to me his desire to carry out the arrangement made between us. Ultimately it was arranged that I should receive £17,000, £15,000 at once, and the balance in five years. In addition to this sum I was to receive from defendant 1400 sheep and some eight or ten imported rams. At that time there was no bond or writing between us. Mr Watt insisted that the bond should be in such form as not to affect the title. There was a verbal agreement in existence between us, I think, on March 10th. The terms of it were tbat if Mr Douglas had not expended £8000 I should receive £2000. I thought tbe expenditure unnecessary. I do not know that I practically gave up £8000 out of the £25.000. I made the best bargain I could. I subsequently accepted the terms that Mr Watt imposed. I had dealings with Mr Watt myself, and owed him some money. Mr Watt was not pressing me then ; at least I did not think so. I never would have sold the land bad I not been compelled to do so. I was under pressure from some source at tbe time. I do not think I told Mr Ramsey Syme that I was under great pressure from Mr Watt. Mr Watt was my merchant at tbat time, and I owed him about £9000. I did not leave the matter of the land in his hands to settle with Mr Douglas, nor did I recognise bim as my agent. He was interested in me bo far as securing a good investment for Mr Douglas wsnr, and probably thought tbat the property would fall into bis own bands. The ultimate arrangement of terms was made in Mr Cotterill's office, as was also the verbal one. Mr Douglas wasnot present at tbe verbal arrangement. I gave instructions for the bond myself in Mr Watt's presence. Probably Mr Douglas may have given instructions for a conveyance ; I did not. The terms of the verbal arrangement were that I was to be paid £2000 provided that Mr Douglas did not spend more than £8000 during the time. I told Mr Watt that there was no necessity for this expenditure. I did not pay Mr Watt any commission that I can remember. Mr Watt •was acting for Mr Douglas. His Honor, on looking at the deed, said it must betaken that the title was imperfect, and tbat something might have to be paid up to £8000. Examination continued : The arrangement was certainly not that I was to receive the £2000 provided the title was completed within five years up to £8000, nor was I to assist defendant in any way in completiag tbe title. I never until now heard of any such proposal. I do not know whether or not Mr Watt eat down at once and wrote a letter to Mr Douglas informing him of the terms. Tbe expenditure of money was I know intended to perfect the title in some way. The bond between defendant and myself was executed in Mr Cotterill's office. I think it was the Bank of New Zealand through the agency probably of Mr Watt, that was putting the screw on me. I got a cheque for the balance, a little over £6000, from Mr Watt out of the £15,000. By Mr Laßcelles: It was before the arrangement was made that Mr Douglas Baid to me tbat if I agreed to let Mr Watt lake the mortgage the land would fall into his (Mr Watt's) hands. I met Mr Watt by appointment, and had several conversations with him. His Honor : The Court goncedes that Mr Watt was acting as agent for Mr Douglas in the matter. Examination continued: On the occasion when the bond was discussed Mr Watt was present. I am positive that at the time mentioned Messrs Watt, Cotterill, and myself were engaged in joint conversation. I cannot state positively whether or not Mr Watt ever saw the bond after it was drawn up, but I should think he did see it. We had several tiroes talked about it. Before tbe execution of the bond I informed Mr Douglas by letter on March 10th r press copy of letter produced], and despatched the letter by my boy. His Honor read the letter, which was to the effect that tbe writer bad seen Mr Watt tbat day, and asking Mr Douglas concerning tbe bond and some sheep •which were deliverable from the defendant to Mr Sutton. Examination resumed : To that letter I received an immediate reply, which, however, bears date of Bthinstead of 10th March, wherein the defendant offers to give me 1300 sheep and several ewes and rams, over and above the price agreed upon, provided the matter would be settled at once, as he (Mr Douglas) did not want to be kept waiting any longer. [Letter put in and read.] On receipt of of tbat reply I went to town the same afternoon and saw Mr Watt On my return home tbat evening I wrote a second letter to Mr Douglas. [Copy produced ] It was to the effect that I had just arranged with Mr Watt for £15,000 and £2000 in five years on the conditions aboveraentioned, and had also a reference to the matter of sheep. At tbe time of the execution of tbe bond Messrs Cornford, Cotterill, Dousrlas, Watt, myself, and I think Mr Balharry, were present. Mr Cotterill attended me, and Mr Cornford attended Mr Douglas as our respective legal advisers. The bond was read over aloud and executed, and Mr Cornford took charge of it. The interlined words " are or may be " were inserted in the bond at my request. Tho initials opposite the interlined words are those of Mr Corn ford and Mr Cotterill. There was nothing said at tbat time implying that I should only get the £2000 in the event of Mr Douglas getting bis title perfect. The first time I heard of such a thing was within about a month of the time when the bond was due. Until le-tely the bond was in my possession. I

believe it lay at Mr Cotterill's office for a year or two. The bond was duly j registered. Mr Douglas and I have been on friendly and intimate relationship during several years past. He never asked me in any way during the whole time for assistance to perfect his title. He never said to me, ■' You know your £2000 depends upon that." One night, about a month before the money was due, Mr Douglas stoppeu at my house, and then for the first time be told me in tbe morning his view of the matter. Ido not think the bond was ever once mentioned between us until that time. By Mr Travers : I am quite sure that Mr Douglas had something to do with the preparation of tbe bond. I distinctly remember Mr Watt asking that the bond should be so prepared as not to affect the title. It was a bond to pay me £2000, and not an agreement or contract that was talked about. My impression of the \erbal arrangement was that the bond was to be executed for the purpose of giving: it effect. William Douglas, being sworn, said : lam the defendant in this action, and signed tbe bond in question. I did not read it over first. It wa3 executed in Mr Cotterill's office. Messrs Cotterill, Cornford, Sutton, Watt, (not Mr Watt deceased), and myself were present. The Mr Watt with whom we negotiated was not present. I executed the document put before me. I never gave Mr Cornford any instructionsconceming the bond. Mr Cornford was my solicitor on that occasion. I had instructed him about a conveyance. I said nothing specially to him about a bond. Mr Watt was tben my merchant. I had negotiations with Mr Sutton with reference to tbe purchase before Mr Watt interfered. Of my own knowledge I was aware that Mr Sutton dealt with Watt Brothers. I left the completion of the negotiations with Mr Sutton in Mr Watt's hands. I first got an intimation that the agreement was concluded on March lltb. I remember receiving the letter mentioned (copy produced) from Mr Sutton on March 10th. I also received a letter from Mr Watt the same day. (Letter produced.) (Left sitting.)