CORRESPONDENCE.
WHO WAS THE GREATEST PROFITEER?
(To the Editor). Sir, —Many who have read the account in your issue on Thursday evening of the Court case against a baker for selling a (oaf of bread which was one ounce short, (a little over a farthing in value), are asking questions. They want to know why an officer who is appointed by the Government and designated with the lordly title of Inspector should be allowed to employ a costly solicitor in such a trumpery case. Surely such an officer should be able to appear and state the facts of his case and allow the Court to decide the case. Thejv also want to know: Why did the Magistrate allow such a fat fee as £3 3s for the solicitor’s five minutes “stunt” in Court. , A strong protest-by the local trades’ association should be made against Mr Varney being allowed to go about employing solicitors in such trivial cases. j am etc., FAIR-PLAY. August 27th. 1920, [The fee is fixed by statute, whether the case be undefended or not.—Ed. “G.”]
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19200830.2.27
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hokitika Guardian, 30 August 1920, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
178CORRESPONDENCE. Hokitika Guardian, 30 August 1920, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
The Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd is the copyright owner for the Hokitika Guardian. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in