SMITH V. CHATBOURNE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 300, 24 January 1868, Page 3

SMITH V. CHATBOURNE.

(To the Epi Ton of the Di'xstan Times.) Sir,—My attention Lm been called to your report of the ease of Smith and party .appellants, and Chatlxmrnc and party, respondent:-, heard in the Appeal Court, at Clyde, before Judge Grey, on the 14th inst. You state that it was ordered "that the judgment of tl.o Warden be set aside, and that the case be re-heard by the Warden.'' Allow me to inform you that no sueh order was made. In your resume of the ease you state that when the case was heard before Mr. Warden Hick3on, " the plaintiffs alleged that there was no record of the certificate (in dispute) at the office at Alexandra from which it was issued." I must again correct you by stating that, neither at the hearing of the case before Mr. Hiekson or at the hearing of the appeal before Judge Grey, was such an assertion wade by Chatbounic and parly. You also state that "The respondents admitting the validity of the certificate, a re-hearing became necessary." >'« sueh admission was made by the respondents, as they questioned the validity of the certificate at the time the case was heard, and still hold the same opinion ; but they agreed (seeing the Ju.lgc intimated his intention of adjourning the ease) to allow a re-hearing of the original case on iti own merits, and for that purpose the respondents agreed not to call into question the validity of the the document, but to allow the equity of the case to be decided upon by tho Warden, and in accordance with sueh agreement an an order was made by the Court. I am, &c, SHAREHOLDER. Toviot, Jan. 21, IStIS.