Original Correspondence.

New Zealander, Volume 2, Issue 98, 17 April 1847, Page 3

Original Correspondence.

To the Editor of the New Zealamler. Sir. — I beg to trespass on your columns io state that when in this port on my last visit to New Z lalaml, I shipped aqu antity of New Zealand Hope, t he manufacture of Mr. Robertson of Mechanics' Hay. It consisted of 2\ and l\ inch liope. 1 have had that rope in constant use ai studding sail's gear, and topsail braces, as well as for other purposes, for upwards of Id months, and have visited various climates ; 1 have been round Cape Horn in the winter, on the coast of South America, in England in the depth of winter, and acioss the line back to this. The Rope therefore has been fairly tested, and 1 can confidently state that it has answered all my expectations, and is nearly equal, in every respect, to rope of European manufacture. All 1 can suggett is a little more care in the preparation of the flax. It is only due to Mr. Robertson to say, that bo satisfied have I been with the rope, that I mean now to take a further supply for fulute purposes. 1 am Sir, Your obedient Servant, Wm. Dakuy, Master of the Louisa Campbell. Auckland Harbour, Apiil Mill, LUG.

To the Editor of the Neia-Zealawlar. Sir,— May I beg to call your attention to the injurious manner the present Cattle Trespass Act affects the Agriculturist. The Act requires your property should be substantially fenced, &c. Now, taking the Epsom and Tamaki districts, you must be aware that Fencing Timber of the nature the Act requires is not to be obtained at any price, and as to scoria walls, the expense places that quite beyond the poor man's reach. It is particularly hard on the farmers with small means in the abovenamed district!., which are overrun with cattle— the owners not caring to keep them on their own property while they can leed unmolested on their neighbour's cultivated land •— and the suflemr has no redress unless his means arc such as to enable him to fence according as the Act requires. Nov.', were the Act amended, | the word substantial omitted, and Pounds established in each district, the cattle owners would be compelled to keep herds, and so remedy the evil ; for so long as the present Act is in force, it is needless attempting cultivation, for certain it is the labour of to-day will be undone to-morrow. I have, &c. A .

Auckland, April 14, 1847. [A— must, we think, upon a little reflection, be willing to acknowledge the extreme difficulty of framing a Cattle Tresspass Ordinance which would be wholly free from objections similar to those which our corresnondcut urges against that now in force. He himself admits, that the omission of the word "substantial" from the present ordinance would entail upon the cattle-owners (for it is upon them that it would ultimately fall) the expense of many pounds as well as that of keeping herds. We may add, that the supposed remedy would also be followed by much ill-feeling and constant litigation between neighbours. Now, if the ordinance were enacted upon the principle proposed by A—, there can be no doubt that it would be soon cotnplnincd of as n public grievance. >Ye agree with A — , however, in thinking that the subject is one of great importance, and we l»avc no doubt that it will be fully discussed at the next Council. But in the meantime we cannot imagine that the Justices would construe the word "substantial" with so much strictness as A— seems to do.— Ed. N. Z.]