Original Correspondence.

New Zealander, Volume 3, Issue 187, 15 March 1848, Page 2

Original Correspondence.

Tv the Editor of the New Zealandcr. Mr. Editor,— ln your leading article of Saturday last, you have deemed it proper gratuitously to assume that my individual case was one of the reasons of Hie Excellency's abolishing the Court of Requests, and following up that assumption, you hare given two versions of the affair, neither of which are correct. In the flist place, I have never stated that my being in jail was owing to Mr. Polack, the vendor, being unable to give me a good title to the land at Lucas's Creek, and that in consequence theieof I was unable to take up the promissory notes when they respectively became due. The facts of the case are simply told ami ai'e these. I purchased the land of Mr. Pollack' for and after paying £'20, on completion of the purchase, gave my promissory notet for the remainder, payable as you state: I immediately went to work upon the land, employed men, and supplied Mr. Polack, at his requeit, with firewood, &c., to the amount of upwards of £75, naturally expecting that such sum would be set off against the said notes, when, and so often as they might respectively become due. But instead of this (although, often requested so to do), Mr. Polack has absolutely refused to come to any settlement, and »ued me upon the notes— whereas, had such set off been allowed by him, they would by this timehave all been satisfied. This amount of labor supplied by a poor man, without any returns, and with slender means, was, I presume, sufficient to cause him to fall into difficulties. As however the case will be brought before another tribunal, I shall not trespass further upon your kindness, only again repeating that I have never told any person <hat it was inconsequence of the non-delivery of a good title by Mr. Polack, that lam at present its jiil, but I have said and still declare, that it my creditor had allowed my just set oft', I should long ere this have been able to pay him all 1 justly owe him. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, William H Annas. Auckland Jail, March IS, 1848. [We insert William Harris's letter, conceiving that any person who has been alluded to in. our columns js entitled to his reply. But we must add that it has been shewn to the vendor, who gives a general denial to the truth of the assertions here made, reserving a full explanation for the other tribunal before which the case is intended to be brought. The statement already given in our columns he allows to be substantially CCE" rect.— -Ed. N. Z.]