MISCELLANEOUS.

Dunstan Times, Issue 700, 17 September 1875, Page 3

MISCELLANEOUS.

An Irishman once lived with a farmer as bailiff. The young folks of the neighborhood, on one occasion, had a party', to which they did not invite him. Pat considered himself j very much slighted ; but after cogitating the matter i'Jor a while, he brightened up and exclaimed, “ Faith, I’ll be aven with them yet; I’ll Lave a party meself, and I won’t invite nobody.” It appears from a statement made to Mr Benson, in the Southwark Police Court, that in that part of London women are being paid for making coloured shirts at the rate of one penny each, and out of that sum they have to find cotton and use their own sewing machines. One of the most remarkable bowling feats ever heard of in the way of cricket has been performed in London. Last dune, in a match M.C.C v. County of Notts, Alfred Shaw, howling for the County, actually howled 41 overs and 2 balls, 30 maidens, for " runs, and took 7 wickets, clean bowling Lord Harris, A. W. Ridley, C. Buller, Clayton and Mr \V. G, Grace. This is one of the most wonderful performances in the history of cricket, and we much doubt if it will ever he surpassed. A man named Challen once got rid of a side for 0, but the players were of a very inferior class. Alfred Shaw is a medium-pace bowler, with considerable spin, and so straight that ho seldom bowls a ball off the wicket except for a catch, and dispenses with the services of a long stop. Southerton has also performed well with the hr 11, being no doubt largely assisted by the deadness of the grounds which would favor his peculiar delivery, and has won tho match for his county (Surra-.) against Gloucester and the Graces, getting 13 wickets for 98 runs. Editors and Proprietors. —“ Kaspar'e ■Wallet," in a late issue of the North Ota' o Times, contains the following “ What are the usual relations between editors and proprietors of journals ? 1 ask because 1 don’t know, and because I’d like to “ know you know.” My relations with ho'h editors and proprietors have hitherto been most satisfactory to me, involving as they have a pleasant interchange of thought and cash. So far as my occasional visits to editorial sanctums have enabled me to judge 1 always imagined editors were little kings, wi hj supreme control over their part of their papers. I fancied that proprietors used their judgment in the appointment of editors, and that little ceremony gone through, I thought that editors, while such, had their turn, and were allowed the unfettered use of their own judgment. These are current ideas, and somehow I picked them up, hut things happen occasionally to roughly disturb settled opinions. Not long ago in Dunedin a gentleman told tho Provincial Council that he knew a journal where tho editor took a certain lino, under compulsion. It wasn’t merely what was said, but what was insinuated, that struck me. This kind of thing is rare, but it does sometimes happen. Another kind of thmg has happened, and being of an inquisitive turn, I'd “ like to know you know,’’ what it means. The Bruce Herald of tho 3rd contains a letter from Mr .Joseph Mackay, the proprietor, in which be states that his views on tho abolition question differ from tho policy urged by the Herald. He also says he does not believe in an editor writing to order, and has left his free and unfettered. There may ho a singularity in the difference, but surely not in the “fiee and unfettered’ part. Of course Mr Mackay knows best. I only ask for information. Tho editorial foot-note to Mr Mackay’s letter says it is not 1 complimentary to those who follow the profession of journalism.’ Just so. Therefore, why tho letter, and why the foot-note. Do they score, a point on some local question ? Is it what is vulgarly called a dodge ?’ I pause for a cply.”

Correcting the Pa'-son. —A' clergyman, having been inducted into a living in Kent, took occasion during his first sermon to introduco the word “optics.” At the conclusion of the service a farmer who was present thanked him for his discourse, but intimated that he had made a small mistake in one word softening down at the same time the severity of his criticism by saying —“ Yet we all knew very well, sir, what you meant." On the clergyman making further inquiries about this word the farmer replied, “What you called hop-sticks in this part of the country wo call hop-poles.” A person pretending to have seen a ghost was asked what the apparition said to him. “ How should I know ?” he replied. “ I’m not skilled in the dead languages. “ Most righteous Judge. "—The following extract from an exchange is worthy of notice Judge Fenton has been summoned and fined by' the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Waiku, for shooting pheasants illegally ere the shooting season commenced. In a letter to the Waiku Bench, the Judge says ‘When I had the bird in my possession, 1 was unaware that such a provision as that under which I am charged existed. The intention of the Legislature seems tn'me to be clear, viz., to get hold of shopkeepers, J-o.; cases like mine were not contemplated. 1 We had always been under the impression that ignorance of the law was not adinissible as a plea of justification, but, lo ! '-a Daniel has come to judgment’ in the person of Judge Fenton, and in the very essence of snobbism, he excl»ims—‘The laws of the Colony I am not acquainted with, and even if I were, they wore not intended to govern me, I 'am a Judge. Laws are only made to repress shop-keepers.’ A nice man for a Judge, certainly.”—Marlborough Express.