THE WAIRARAPA PASTORAL ASSOCIATION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4921, 30 December 1876, Page 2

THE WAIRARAPA PASTORAL ASSOCIATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir,— l have just read the two letters from Mr. George Beetham, published in your issue this morning, and in reply to the contents of the first one it is only necessary for me to confirm what , you stated in the foot-note attached to the second letter, namely, that I had nothing whatever to do with publishing the letters which appeared in the Wairarapa Standard ; but I wish to call attention to the fact that in the letter which I seijt to Mr. Frethey on the 3rd November I stated—"/ understand that this matter has excited considerable interest m your distinct, and has formed the subject of many discussions. I shall,] therefore, fed myself at liberty to publish, all the correspondence after receiving your reply to this communication and I carried out my intention the moment , I received Mr. Frethey’s letter of the 18th December. The residue of Mr. Beetham’s letter has reference to your sub-leader. I shall, therefore, leave you to defend yourself. In his second letter Mr. Beetham denies the accuracy of my statements with regard to entering the two bull calves. In reply, I need only state that when his brother, Mr. Hugh Beetham, lodged a complaint against me, I waited patiently until the committee of the Wairarapa and East Coast Pastoral, Agricultural, and Horticultural Association gave their decision, which was as follows : Ist. That there is nothing to show that the bull was entered as pure-bred. ■ 2nd. That there is also nothing to show that the pedigree, as furnished by Mr. Hunter, was not correct. 3rd. That Mr. Hunter appears to have taken every care to enter the animal in the proper class. ' 4th. The committee are therefore of opinion that Mr. Beetham’s protest-against the prize being given to Mr.’ Hunter cannot be sustained. In the face of this I am - not going to open up the question, or ,go over the ground a second time, I am content to let the public ' judge between Mr. Beetham and myself. Mr. Beetham next proceeds to attack me because Messrs.’ W. T. Forbes and Co. advertised the animals as pure-bred. Possibly he and others might have had some cause of complaint if the pedigrees had not been made public at the same time, which enabled any person to test the accuracy of the statement. The full pedigrees were exhibited at the sale, and open to the inspection of every person present. ’ When Mr. Beetham met me in the street (he did not call upon me, as stated in his letter), he accused me of entering the animals as pure-bred. I denied haring done so. He •said they were advertised for sale as purebred. I replied that it might have been so, but that a detailed pedigree was in the hands of the auctioneer, and that no person could have been in doubt as to what he was buying. He then spoke Of the'high price given for the bull, and wished hla;: moljey’ returned. I replied that at any rjyte it .was worth more than he had given for it,.and £hat R had not-been for what he had said'abouPthV transaction I would willing ha;--quest. He then used some ratfier strong language. I replied in the same strain, and walked away, leaving him standing in the street. Mr. W. W. Johnston, M.H.R., afterwards called upon me on behalf of the Messrs. Beetham, and I explained the whole matter to that gentleman, and, as stated in a letter which I wrote to him ' last Wednesday (to which he has not yet replied), I understood - that when? he left my office (he was perfectly satisfied that there was no foundation for the charges brought against me by Mr. Beetham, or any valid reason why I should refund the money received by my agents for the calf. Mr. Johnston never urged me to do so, and I offered to let the question be decided by the Resident Magistrate if his clients liked to take the case into Court in Wellington. From that day up to the 27th October, when I received Mr. Frethey’s letter of the previous day’s date, I never heard a word further on the subject. Mr. Beetham does not deny that he acted as one of the judges. Whether that was good taste on his part I shall leave others to der cide. That he was not qualified to hold such a position is shown by the decision he concurred in giving, which disqualified Mr. Lowe’s purebred Romney Marsh ram. I have only one other point to refer to. In his last letter Mr. Beetham states:—“ The fact that Mr. T. Mason of the Hutt, and Mr. Lysaghi of Christchurch, were the judges of the Lincoln classes, should he sufficient answer to Mr. Hunter's false statement that I was in their company while they were judging." In answer to this, I have simply to state' that when Mr. Mason and Mr. Lysaght were going from pen to pen examining the Lincoln exhibits, my manager (Mr. Robert McKay) noticed that Mr. Beetham was with them. He called Mr. MoMasters’ attention to the circumstance, and the last-named went to Mr. Buchanan, who Was one of the committee, and told him that Mr. McKay did not consider it fair. Mr. Buchanan then came to my manager, and told him he had no right to make any remarks, that Mr. Beetham was one of the committee, and had a right to go where he pleased. I shall again leave others to determinne whether Mr. Beetham has any justification for using the words Mr. Hunter's false statement.— l am, &c., • ■i . George Hunter. Wellington, December 29.