THE LATE BUGGY CATASTROPHE.

Kumara Times, Issue 2547, 20 August 1884, Page 2

THE LATE BUGGY CATASTROPHE.

[to the editor.]

Sir—Your issue of Monday contains, under the nom-de-querre of “ X.Y.Z.,” a pentagonal reply to “ Zigzag ” of Saturday, and as I intend to take the aforesaid polygon in detail, I trust you will bear with me while I show the utter incongruity of the emanation in question.

“X.Y.Z.’s” first shows as an “incontrovertible fact ” that the under part of the buggy, the four wheels included, went away entire with the harness for three miles! Why, Mr Editor, if he added, by way of finish to his sentence, that the horses also went the three miles, I would not dream of “ controverting the fact.” Bat, in his mention of the two parts becoming asunder, he might in justice add, that the hood was altogether lorn from the body, the fore spying was shattered, the bolts that fastened ilio body to the frame-work v ee token, besides

sundry vents in the hood, and breakages in the body. I am at a loss to determine how he can draw from the foregoing the inference that “ the upper and lower parts were insecurely fixed together.” He will surely concede, from the speed with which the horses •went down the hill, that (as the Yankees would say) “ something was bound to smash." “X.Y.Z.’s” second—lf your correspondent made a more minute examination of the scene of the disaster, he would discover a birch stump torn by the roots, and afterwards in his scrutiny of the wreck of the bnggy, if he devoted a little more time to an inspection of the hood, he would find that the framework, consisting of the best hickory, was snapped asunder. With the foregoing facts “ Zigzag ” finds a very different theory from that which “X.Y.Z.” would wish him to accept, viz., the frame-work of the hood, while the buggy had partly toppled over, came in contact with the stump in question, and the horses, going at full speed, dragged the wheels and under parts away, leaving the body, hood, and living freight ” behind. Again, Mr Editor, your correspondent allows that “ the buggy did tip in some such manner as a tipdray, and yet he says it is not stated that it tipped backwards, forwards, or sideways but simply that it did tip." Why, sir, surely a tip-dray always tips backwards (unless it is forced to a departure from the general rule in some manner similar to that experienced by the huggy.)

“ X.Y.Z.’s ” third and fourth—As to the statement that “ there were no impressions upon the mullock bank,” I would be inclined to think he prevaricated, if his assertion, further on where he says the “collapse took place in the smoothest and most level part of the road,” did not convince me that he was not directed to the exact scene of the catastrophe. If he were, he would not fail to discover the “ awkward impressions” the hoofprints of the horses, and the torn-up stumps mentioned in the early part of this letter.

“X.Y.Z.’s” fifth gravely says “be examined the structure of the buggy since the accident, and in his opinion it was wholly unfit for the purpose for which it was hired out.” I fear his opinion will be set at nought when the matter will be undergoing investigation before a proper tribunal (which I understand is the case), and when the testimony of competent judges will be taken as to the fitness of the buggy for the purpose for which it was hired out.—l am, sir, yours obediently, Zigzag, Eumara, 19th August. [We cannot see what interest this matter has for the general public after the affair has been explained in these columns by eye-witnesses of the catastrophe. It is simply a matter of business now between the parties concerned, and if they cannot settle the question without going to law, all that might be written in the newspaper from now till doomsday will never satisfy nor give relief to either party, and we must therefore decline any more letters on the subject.— Ed. K. T.]