ELDER v. MANSFOBD.

Evening Star, Issue 3116, 13 February 1873, Page 2

ELDER v. MANSFOBD.

To the 'Editor.

Sir, — The report furnished by your Resident Magistrate’s Court reporter for Port Chalmers of the case Elder v. Maosford is so unfai l- towards myself that I have to request the favor of your inserting the foil#wing particulars in connection with the case. Your report abound-* in false suggestions and suppressions of the truth, the suggestions being that the plaintiff took advantage of a legal quibble to defraud the defendant out of money to which he was justly entitled, and that the charges for work done were correct. The suppressions of the truth are—

Ist, That Mr Mansford abandoned the claim for the LI Is, This in itself is correct, hut yoar reporter carefully conceals that he did not do so until tbe presiding Magistrate, Mr Strode hid disallowed the charge as one that should have been paid eighteen months ago by another party, 2nd. That after the decision had been given in my favor, I requested the Magistrate’s opinion as to whether tbe L2 2a charged against roe for the other attendance in the Court was a fair one. Your reporter is again correct in saying that his Worship did say the charge was fair, but again neglects to|state that, on being informed that LI Is professional costs had already been paid to Mr Mansford by direction of the Court a year and a half ago, he said that that altered the case altogether, and that only Id Is would remain due, which I immediately stated would be paid by me to Mr Mansford, a* I had no wish.to benefit myself at Mr Mansford’s expense on a point of law. With these additions, which I think will place the subject in a totally different light before your readers, I believe your report to be an excellent one —I am, kc.,

Wm. Eldhr,

Port Chalmers, Feb. 13,