DISGRACEFUL.

Patea Mail, 18 January 1882, Page 3

DISGRACEFUL.

The following remarkable telegram is published nil over the colony, on the authority of the Patea correspondent of the Press Association :

“ Patea, Jan. 17.—The criminal information by Mr Sherwood against the proprietor of the Evening News was called on this morning, and the hearing adjourned for a week for the production of important witnesses. The case is exciting considerable interest, as startling revelations concerning Mr Sherwood are expected.” It is due to the local public to be informed that the person who acts as correspondent in Patea for the Press Association is Mr John Black, and that this message was sent by his reporter, Mr D. H. Parry, who wrote the libel of winch the Mayor complains. It was Mr John Black who published the libellous article which caused the Mayor to demand proof in a Court; and it is Mr John Black, the defendant in the above action, who is responsible for sanding the above telegram to every part of the colony. What is the plain meaning of lhat telegram ? Does it not insinuate that, in addition to the charge of improperly divulging the contents of one tender and thereby secretly favoring another tenderer, the Mayor is also guilty of certain other crimes which, when disclosed by these “ important witnesses,” will be startling revelations ? Why should these “ revelations concerning Mr Sherwood ” be startling, unless he is more wicked than even Mr John Black had previously dared to reveal ? The defendant in this local libel case is thus seen to be using a facility at bis command for further defaming the Mayor of Patea in every town in the colony. Although the case is subjudice , and the defendant is bound over to answer the charge of libel next Tuesday, yet he is publishing broadcast a damaging comment on the case, by insinuating further defamatory charges which he calls “ startling revelations concerning Mr Sherwood.” If an honest man knew of such charges, he should state them openly as a public duty, or be honorably silent. Patea borough is also being defamed by this circulation of scandalous insinuations against its Mayor, Every person of honest sympathies will feely Test the matter: by these two questions : 1, Was the telegram intended to defame the Mayor of Patea ? 2, Would any outside person put any other construction on it than that the “ startling revelations” were disgraceful to the Mayor of Patea, and to those who elected him ?