Puriri v Somnus

Feilding Star, Volume XI, Issue 72, 5 December 1889, Page 3

Puriri v Somnus

The following is a reply to a letter published in . the Wanganui Herald and reproduced by us in a former j issue. Sir,— Under the above headI ing I observe a letter in your issue of the 28th instant wherein Mr Gillies finds fault with the report in the Wellington papers " that Messrs JRed,woo'd, Gaisford, and McEae were the judges of bl iod ' stock at the ''Wellington A. and P. Association," thereby making it appear that his horse was favoured. , As a matter >o£ fact Messrs Redwood, Gaisford, and Mcßae were judges 'appointed, although the former gentleman did not- act; not Sir, because he was (as stated by- Mr Gillies) in Christchurch/ for he was in Wellington at the time, but probabiy, if the truth was known, because being the breeder and former owner of Punri he very proj c ly declined the post of judge in that class. Had Mr McEae, a more recent owner of Puriri exercised the same nice feeling and have allowed some disinterested judge, to have performed the duties in that class, there is no doubt - the resul* would have been" more, in s accordance with the feeling of the public Bonnnuß, on the the two former occasions that he met Puriri,- viz., at Egmont Show last year, ' and at -Manawatu Show this year, beat him, therefore the public are at a loss to know why the tables should now be turned.— l i am, &c, ' S. M. Baker, j

Feilding, Nov., 29tb, 1889