THE WAIRARAPA PASTORAL ASSOCIATION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4923, 3 January 1877, Page 2

THE WAIRARAPA PASTORAL ASSOCIATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —I am sorry to have to trouble you and be forced to trespass further on the patience of your readers; but Mr. Beetham having thought fit to publish the letter which appeared in your columns last Monday, I have no alternative, as there are some points in it which I cannot permit to pass unchallenged. Mr. Beetham is kind enough to commence by again drawing attention to the decision of the committee of the Wairarapa and East Coast Pastoral, Agricultural, and Horticultural Association, which affirmed —

“ Ist. That there is nothing to shov) that the lull was entered as pure-bred .” “ 2nd. That there is also nothing to show that the pedigree, as furnished by Mr. Hunter, was not comet."

Mr. Beetham then proceeds to give his opinion, which of course differs from that expressed by the committee; but it appears to me that he fails' to adduce reasons which would convince any unprejudiced mind. I have seldom heard of a case in which a verdict satisfied the plaintiff and also the defendant. In this instance the judgment was in my favor and against Mr. Beetham; I may be sorry for him, but cannot regret that justice was done to myself. Mr. Beetham is then pleased to remark: “ I would state further that Mr. Hunter's son and his agent were present at the sale of the lulls. If there had been, any irregularity it was their duty (not the buyer's) to call attention to ii at once ; lut they allowed the sale to go on withoutsaying a wordP It is quite refreshing to be able to agree with Mr. Beetham, but I do so most cordially. He appears to have forgotten, however, that a perfectly honest pedigree was exhibited and open for inspection prior to the sale. Consequently there was no irregularity, or any occasion for my son or manager to say a single word. It is not a matter of much consequence, hut I notice that in his letter Mr. Beetham states; “ The interview between nvysdf and Mr. Hunter that he refers to took place in his office, but we parted in the street." I am certain that this.

was not the case ; it is not very likely that I would have accompanied Mr. Bootham to the door of my office and then have followed him into the street; if my recollection is not greatly at fault, neither of us were very anxious to enjoy each other’s society at that particular moment. ■ , . , , Mx-. Beetham is quite right when he states, “ hut at no time during the inter new did Mr. limiter even infer that he would have refunded the money:’ He should have added that I told him if he had behaved like a gentleman I might have done so. Ho concludes his letter in these words:— “As Mr. Hunter has again referred to myself in rannertion with the judges of the Lincoln clf-OPr- I will state that after reading Mr. Hunter'S letter this morning I waited upon Mr. Mason, who authorises me to stale that he did this morning write to Mr. Hunter, acquainting him with the fact that there was net the slightest foundation, for Mr. Hunters charges. n reply, I have to state that Mr. Mason sent me two letters (tljev can he published if m‘c,'saan). In the first one he stated: “ Ao«e oj the' licet ha ms were with us during the time tee were judging.'' In 1™ second letter, which was written after he had read he letter which I published in the llMiw last Saturday, he stated : “ George Beetham was certainly with us after the prizes were awarded, hit not before, and the particular occasion would probably be when we called the attention of the stewards to the reason for the disqualification of a pen of Lincoln sheep on account of there being more than the number required. These.proved to belong to the Beetham Brothers ; and George Beetham, both on behalf of his brother, and also in his rapacity of steward., said that we were perfectly iastified, and wmld not have done otherwise" T Bus [ replied : “/ was very glad to find !'• >t it at co firm, the aceuracii of the statement made by my manager Mr. Robert McKay, which Mr Beetham declared was false, namely, that Mr. heetham was ia company with the judges before the awards in the Lincoln classes were made public. Mr. McKui/ is so thoroughly honest that I never doubted that what he stated to me was perfectly true. Of course, he could not know the reason why Mr. Beetham was conferring _ -with the judges, and it seemed to him unfair for any competitor to he interfering.” I am again content to leave the public to decide whether I was not warranted in stating, on the authority of my manager, that Mr. George Beetham was in company with the judges when they were inspecting classes 25 and 32, and before their awards had been made public.—-I am, &c., George Hunter. ■Wellington, January 2. TO THE EDITOR OP THE SEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sre, —Allow me, as an old member of the Agricultural Society, to draw attention to a "few facts regarding the protest recently entered against Mr. Hunter by Mr. H. Beetham, most of which the former gentleman appears to have overlooked, but which are very necessary if a correct conclusion is to be come to. Mr, Hunter, as one of the first members of the association, and as one possessing the deepen: interest in its welfare, must have been conversant with the standing rules, as well as the programmes which were issued every year According to the programme for the show held at Masterton on, the Ist December, 1875, which was published as a supplement to the Times, for October 16 in that year, cattle are divided into two sets, viz., “ shorthorns,” the pedigrees of which had to be lodged with the secretary at the time of entry, as specially mentioned at the foot, and “ cattle of any breed.” Mr. Hunter should have no reason to complain that he had no time to prepare his entries, for he had over five weeks ; nor doss it appear that he did anything regarding them without the usual deliberation. In the correspondence recently published he states that he had entered his bull calves as yearlings of any breed. I must direct particular attention to the fact that the entries of the calves Perfection and Enchanter were accompanied by what purported to be their pedigrees. These pedigrees were further put up over the pens when the prizes had been awarded, and were given to the buyers of Enchanter, Messrs. Beetham, who, in common with the rest of the breeders on the ground, were under the impression that the animals were pure-bred, as was to be inferred from the pedigrees furnished. In this belief they we e strengthened by the fact that the entries appeared in the catalogue as “ shorthorn yearling bulls,” and not as Mr. Hunter would now have the public believe, “of any breed.” Mr. Hunter tries to make capital out of. the fact that they were put into the class after he had made the entry ; it will, however, be borne in mind that this did not mean a transfer from “ any breed ” to “ shorthorn,” but simply from “ calves,” for which there was no class, to “yearlings.” When Messrs. Beetham discovered that their purchase was not in the Herdbook, and that his pedigree did not entitle him to be there, they demanded an explanation from Mr. Hunter, when that gentleman, as practically admitted by him, at first stated that the animal was pure. A refund of the purchase money, applied for after Mr. Hunter had admitted that the bull was not pure-bred, was refused.

I was the purchaser of the other bull shown, and, like Messrs. Beetham, believed the pedigree furnished to be faultless. But finding myself in the same predicament as those gentlemen, I also went to Mr. Hunter. But I was assured by him that although my bull was not in the Herdbook, I could rest satisfied that it was of as good blood and as pure as any in the colony. He related to me that he had bought the grand-dam, a pure-bred cow, when she was nineteen years old, and that from her he had one calf, being Snowdrop, the dam of Perfection. I took Mr. Hunter’s word as that of a gentleman, and fully believe that what he told me is correct. But, as a gentleman, he should also have refunded Messrs. Beetham the amount they paid him for their purchase In my mind I have not the slightest doubt that the one was brought in and passed off under the good name of the other. I need hardly say that here arises another curious feature. Mr. Hunter, as above stated, asserts that he entered both as of “ any breed.” Is it likely, I ask, that he would put a pure-bred animal into an inferior class ? Your readers can draw their own inferences.

Mr. Hunter regrets that he did not win the first cup offered by the association. Permit me to state that he is in error in saying that the cup offered at the last show is the first, for T. was the winner of a cup offered at the first show iu the district, beating Mr. Hunter and others.

The secretary of the association states that the complaint I made before the committee was a verbal one; I must, however, point out that it is entered in the minute book. I drew attention to Rule 19, which gives power for the expulsion of members for misconduct.— I am, &c,, J. G. Rocker. Matatimu, 39th December.