RYAN V. MOUTRAY.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1303, 2 October 1872, Page 2

RYAN V. MOUTRAY.

. [to the editok. j , Sir — As Messrs Ryan Brothers have endeavored, through the medium of your paper, to extenuate their conduct in suing me for the rent of land which, as regards all practical use of it, has been swept away by the river, I trust you will give me space for a few lines in reply to their letter. They seem, sir, to have forgotten that whether they had leased the land to me or not they would still have lost it by the flood. The moral question to be decided is not "which of us is the greatest loser by the flood," but "are Messrs Ryan Brothers justified in endeavoring to make me pay rent for a piece of land of which I can have no. beneficial occupation." Whilst speaking of their loss by the flood Messrs Ryan Brothers omit to state what all others must remember, namely, that if they had been in occupation of the land in question at the .time of the flood instead of me, they would have lost not 1 only the land, as they do now, buf, as I did, all their stock and effects in addition. And had they been, as I was, in poor circumstances, they would have been left entirely homeless and destitute. The horse and other effects (the latter of which are perfectly valueless, having been dug out of the sand) referred to in Messrs Ryan Brothers' letter, I offered to them after the flood, together withsthe agreement not to carry on business in Greymouth, but they declined to accept them lest their claim for rent might be invalidated. As to the supposed offer to build another place for me after the flood, no such offer was ever made, unless the fact of my being asked, after I had made a business where I am now residing, if I should like a place built for me could be [ construed to be euch an offer. I think, sir, these facts will show on which side the equities of the case lie. I am, &c. , Wm. Moutray. [We admit this letter, as a reply to one which was previously inserted, and because it does, not deal with the legal question between the parties ; but, as the case is understood to have been appealed, and is therefore still sub judice, it would be preferable that the correspondence should cease.]