The Blackmore Case:

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 93, 20 January 1885, Page 2

The Blackmore Case :

' ' *' As this case is ! #«.'• judiee. we have no intention of commenting on it, and We now- merely desire- .toi. remove' an impression which has been made on the minds of several ' persons that the two sureties proposed by Mr Blackmore had been declined, and -that Messrs Sherwill and Goodbeherehad (exceeded their powers in so doing. ; Xn- the , first. place we j must ■tale that we have seen a letter from Mr Blackmore's solicitor, in. which it is distinctly stated that the sureties proposed had been declined by the solicitor for the Borough at Palmerston, his clients, and the clerk :to the . court. On the ; other hand we publish an extract from a; letter ofthe said Borough solicitor, in which he says — " Since writing you to day I have, received a. communication from the plaintiff's solicitor, proposing Messrs Cot- ' trell and _7ewman;*of Feilding, as sureties for Blackmorey Kindly let me j know whether jy on think 'thes-l gtthtlemen sub-; stantial; if not I will call upon tliem to. justify ?by .affidavit? When that! letter was|reajl_tp. the Council, "The Mayor said it rested with the Council astoac* cc**;' ing. or aot,, Messrs Cottrell and New-' "man as securities. He also-said that with reference to the) matte? bf the judgment •nmraoni against Mr Blackmore for costs of 'the first action instructions have been given to issue the same." As therewas. no dissent oh the. part of the Council, the names as above were 'duly accepted. It is cl ear frbin this that Mr Blackmore's solicitoi-p and the solicitor at; Palmerston havei not» eWcii ptbe. when" -Jr-H-nkins -asked time to referj the: names to. the Gouncii. for ap■pibYfl'AAHineiilfa lacrimal, .; i ;W:tfl.~.~ ' .'iOJ'