THE LANDLORD BAILIFF’S VINDICATION.

Patea Mail, 7 June 1881, Page 3

THE LANDLORD BAILIFF’S VINDICATION.

Sir, —There appears in your last issue an article headed “ Distraint and Distress,” which if real might rightly be called a painful occurrence, but being untrue was properly termed a painful romance ; although I have not yet observed where the pain comes in. To this painful something, however, it would seem that a reply from me is expected. It is really very annoying. I would wish to know if your informant is prepared to substantiate the same, or whether there may have been any misconception on your part. I trust that you are quite clear on this point. I have carefully perused it, and havingpersonal knowledge of the main facts in connection therewith, find it extremely difficult to reconcile with my obseravations.

I therefore unhesitatingly denounce the said article as a fabrication without foundation, and hereby publicly challenge your informant to prove the same as facts. I intended in replying to this to have followed it in detail, refuting each and all of the objectionable matters in .succession by giving a plain and fearless statement of the facts of the case in point; but as my occupation is unfortunately rather brisk at present, and your informant’s may probably be the reverse, I will leave to him the opportunity of complying with the terms of my challenge, failing which a public retraction. In order, however, to lighten the burden he has imposed on himself, I purpose extracting from the ‘ Distraint and Distress ” article the few portions of truth contained, and leave the balance creditor to his account, which it is to be hoped he will render profitable to his reputation. Extracts :—(1) John Bonham and his wife have recentty rented a house of mine at 20s per week. (2) John Bonham left Patea lately without paying the rent. (3) The landlord bailiff seized the furniture in satisfaction of the rent. (4) The furniture was sold by a licensed auctioneer at public auction. ' . Mrs Bonham previous to the sale authorised rno to sell all that I had seized, and after payment of rent to hand over the balance (if tiny) to her, to which I agreed. I only had power under the warrant to sell for the amount of seven weeks rent and costs, whereas the information in your report, together with the authority of Mrs Bonham, assures me in the full amount of rent being 11 weeks (up to the day of sale) at 20s, £ll ; and costs of execution 38s, and auctioneer’s commission 13s ; total £l3 lls. The sale lam imformed,realized over £12 —not £7—as elsewhere shown. In conclusion I seriously deplore the unfortunate and distressed circumstances of Mrs Bonham on the whole, ' and am willing to contribute the sum of £2 if her assumed protector aud legal adviser will wait upon the cruel and heartless bailiff landlord on any day during the present week. One word more. Ido not purpose to continue a paper warfare, and will decline further reply in this matter. lam pretty well known, and conveniently found to account for ray misdeeds. Wm Connolly, Bailiff. Patea, 6th June.