Correspondence.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VIII, Issue 531, 5 December 1857, Page 5

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the ' Lyttelton Time*:' Sib, —As I have no desire to render railing for railing, nor to stir up the evil passions of the human mind, I had no intention of con.tinuiug the controversy between MivMarsack and nayself beyond, my last letter—especially ,arl am convinced of thfctnrth of the adage," A man convinced, against his will, &c." Your i courtesy,, however, in offering space for a brief regly^ looks so much like a public challenge that I cannot allow you to outdo me in politeness: permit me therefore to publicly thank you, and to assure my literary opponent, that however much we may differ in opinion, I have not so much innate depravity in my nature— nor am Iso contaminated by the drama—as to bear him any ill will; on the contrary, I hope he may long enjoy the pleasures of picnics, amid the picturesque scenery of the plains, and shed a halo of pleasure on the thriving peasantry round him, by his cheering conversation, and erudite discourses on the hardy virtues of Ancient Borne. CHARLES J. RAE. Clarerton Cottage, Nov. 30th, 1857.. " To the Editor of the ' Lyttelton Time*: BLACK V. MASON. Sib, —The report of this case in your issue of the 28th ultimo is somewhat incorrect, and calculated to prejudice the defendant. It states that the defendant disputed only the claim for interest, £5 10s. 6d. The dispute in the case was in reality a sum of £50 on the contra side of the account proved to have been placed in the hands of the plaintiff for the defendant's use, and of which the defendant could obtain no account until this action was brought. . The real question in the case was the due appropriation of that money, and is the subject of an appeal from the decision of the Resident Magistrate. I desist, therefore, from any further allusion to it. I simply ask the favour of your placing this explanation in your columns in order to remove the impression which your short report of the case might engender: that the defendant was either litigious or desirous to avoid a claim he knew to be just on so unimportant an object. I am, sir, Tours obediently, C. W. DAMPIBR, Defendant's Solicitor.