LOW v. ROSS.

Dunstan Times, Issue 492, 22 September 1871, Page 3

LOW v. ROSS.

(TO THE EDITOR OF THE DCKSTAN TIMES.) Sir With reference to your “ own correspondent’s ” remarks respecting the above case which was heard at Alexandra on Monday the 11th instant, I beg to inform you that Mr. Low was not made acquainted with the day appointed for the hearing, or he would have been present, and then the case would doubtless have assumed a very different complexion. In the absence of the plaintiff, the evidence given by the defendant was as a matter of course accepted. I may however remark that the sum paid into Court was 10/. 125., and not 101. as your “ own correspondent ” asserts. The security to which your '‘own correspondent ” alludes, was a post dated cheque for 101,, which my client naturally refused to accept, knowing that it was an illegal document. Your “ own correspondent ” goes on to say that “at the termination of the case very strong feeling was exhibited,” this is simply incorrect— m feeling was exhibited, in fact, the Court-house was nearly deserted. I should not have taken notice of the incorrectness of your ■“ own correspondent’s statements, were it not that I feel an injustice has been done to my client, who had a’lowedthe debt due to him to remain unsatisfied for upwards of two years, and who would probably have never asked Mr. Ross to pay it had not circumstances arisen, which Mr. Low considered thoroughly justified him in withdrawing the consideration which he had invariably accorded to Mr. Ross. I am Sir, Yours, &c. ANTHONY BROUGH, Solicitor for the Plaintiff.