MR,JOHN STAMPER REBUTTED.

Evening Star, Issue 3759, 11 March 1875, Page 3

MR,JOHN STAMPER REBUTTED.

To the Editor, Sir, —Having noticed a letter entitled “ Incorrect Reports,” in your issue of yesterday, reflecting upon the ‘ Daily Times ’ report of ’the case Russell v. Filewood, recently heard in the Resident Magistrate's Court, I desire to dirtinctly contradict several statements therein The writer, John Stamper, asks “Of what utility is a public journal if you cannot credit its statements ? When the ‘ Times ’ reported what (it represented) was said by the R.M. immediately previous to File wood’s commitment, who could have thought a reporter could hpve been indebted to his mere imagination for alleged facts?” Now, I challenge Mr Stamper to point out any error that occurred in the . 'limes ’ report, or a passage for which I was indebted to my imagination. Again he says Ihe letter (Filewood’s) which afterwards appeared in that paper altogether had reference to that report, and was induced entirely by it, which I have since been led to believe must, or might have been, correct. I have Mr Edward Filewood’s letter contains the slightest reference to the ‘ Times ’ report, I emphatically deny. This lettei simply contained his own interpretation of the Resident Magistrate’s remarks when giving judgraent in his case, which he (the R.M.) declared “ highly fraudulent.” After assuming that the ‘ Times 1 report is erroneous, Mr Stamper proceeds to acknowledge that he had been led to believe that it must or might have been correct. Tiuly, if the letter contained no serious accusations, it might be regarded as a practical joke. But, mark how carefully Mr Stamper acknowledges the erratic character of his letter. “However,” he says, “bo this as it may. although the editor of that journal allowed such a report, and has been repeatedly invited

to say if it is correct, but he declines to do so. 5 ' Ihe grammatical construction of the above sentence has doubtless caused much amusement Simply because the editor of the ‘ Times ’ re fused to certify to the correctness of the reMr Stamper “ must take it to be untrue,” and intimates that “ the cause of some trifling disagreement and unpleasantness which has since been occasioned must be attributed to what, consequently, must now be regaided as admitted to bo totally unfounded and insupportable,’’ To these latter assertions I beg leave to give my unqualified denial. Without professing to be infallible, I trust that Mr Stamper will (if he can) publish the actual grounds upon which he has based his charges against the ‘Times.’ Not bb- dcsV-- ; -. r '. r attaining notoriety, I enclose nu c.ird, ; .ud m main—Yours, &c., This ‘Times’ Reporter. Dunedin, March 11.