Correspondence.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IX, Issue 569, 17 April 1858, Page 4

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times.

Sir,—Prom your dual relationship with the public, both as their chronicler and conservator, suffer me to direct your attention to the importance of placing "before your readers the facts of the case, Percival v. Hughes, as tried before the Lyttelton Bench on the 12th inst.

To a man of my thinking, the closing scene of a public act should be honored with a local editorial notice, and to my reading, the last year's numbers of the 'Lyttelton Times' would furnish us with a precedent for believing that such is not out of their usual course unless they take an exception to the rule in this case.

As the complainant in the above case, and as the individual against whom judgment has been pronounced, I would desire to see the decision of so unusually a full and experienced Bench not concealed from the public from any modest diffidence on their part, but be put forward as a warning to any rash or " energetic" man like myself, who might suffer himself to be misled by such a colonial ignis 'fatuus as to suppose that the fact of property being held under a wife's trust, with a life interest therein, would entitle the husband to sue for damages sustained in the commission of trespass. Such was the rock I split upon, and I should so like others to take warning by me and profit by my experience. The attendance of Jive Magistrates on the Bench here is rather a notable occurrence and worthy of an epoch ! To the legal acumen of the professional pleader retained therein, as well as the general ability of his summing up, I confess honourable mention is due. My temporary defeat is considerably softened from the antidote administered by the Bench, "that there may be grounds for an action against other parties," so that a day of retribution is coming. Cum hora veniet, .Won't IP I subscribe myself, Your very obedient servant, WESTBY H. PEKCIVAL. Brooklands, April 13, 1858.