CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 29, 16 January 1862, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Hawke's Bay Times.

Sib, — There is an envious sort of paragraph in to-day’s Herald headed “ The Maori.es v. Shirley,” which stated that the Messrs. Shirley are to be tried for trespass under the English Ordinance before two Justices of the Peace and two native Assessors. I should have thought there might be something in it, if it was not for the contradictory statement about the same parties lately published in the same paper, only last week it was—the cattle are restored to the Messrs. Shirley “as on no other terms would Mr. Ward consent to investigate the case.” “ Well,” (I said,) “ that’s right, Mr. Ward, and seems to show that the natives can be dealt with, after all” ; but the illusion was dispelled by the next paper,' which informed us that the cattle had not been delivered up. Now, I expect on Saturday, to read in the Herald a paragraph to the following effect: — “ We were in error in our last when we stated that the case of the natives against Messrs. Shirley was to be heard for cattle trespass, &c., the fact being that it was the Messrs. Shirley against the Maories for cattle stealing, as they could not be prosecuted for trespass under the English Ordinance, as that Ordinance had no reference to native lands; that, at the time of the alleged trespass, no illegal act was committed, and although the Ordinance may be made to apply to such lands prospectively, it cannot be made to apply retrospectively, therefore we were incorrect in what we said on Tuesday.” I wish Saturday was here that I might see. Yours truly, Lex Rationis. Jan. 14, 18G2.