HORNE V. BEGG.

Evening Star, Issue 3473, 10 April 1874, Page 3

HORNE V. BEGG.

' ' To the Editor. plaintiff desires me to thank you for havir g kindly inserted his letter It yesterday's Star, and expressed sympathy towards him as one of those, who, by some questionably legitimate means, are Btill deprived of tbsir wearing apparel and luggage, and which the law in New Zealand eeems so reluctant to aid in recovering. Fo: this reason : that an you have made an editorial note in an attempt to answer, but have thereby not in fact answered Mr florae's only reasonable and not improper inquiry, I am asked to repeat it; for that, with all deference to the learned magistrate, had he, as. you allege, decided the case, instead ( of, without stating any grounds in , support, aa is usual, or even in what respect the plaintiff*? case: was 'deficient *Q evidence, but merely he did "not think there was evj.

dence to make the defendant liable,” Mr Horne would have had no cause to make the enquiry he now again seeks for an answer. I don’t wish to obtrude my humble idea that ho unquestionably proved a case sufficient for the defendant to answer. The supposed deficiency in evidence, namely, as to wherher the plaimiff’s gouds were on board when the defendat sold the ship and its contents, was no deficiency |in fact, as in all civil cases preponderance of probability alone may constitute sufficient ground for a verdict (1 refer to ‘Taylor on Kvidence’); and I cannot help adding it certainly is to be lamented that these poor passengers are still to be deprived of their luggage.—l am, ftc., „ , John Stamper. Rattray street, April 10.