CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume 1, Issue 25, 8 February 1873, Page 1 (Supplement)

CORRESPONDENCE.

[Our columns are open for free discussion; but we do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents.]

TO THB KDITOB OB THB STAVDABD.

Sib, —As you have devoted almost the whole of last Saturday's issue of your paper (excluding that portion devoted advertisements) to remarks upon the recent lamentable death by poisoning at Waeranga-a-hika; and as my name is constantly mentioned in the matter, I desire that you will grant me some space in your columns to reply » f° r > TW 7 much to my disgust, your words and insinuations are such as to compel mo to notice them. Let me reply first to direct accusations. You assert that my evidence at the inquest shewed that I had more regard for the lives of sheep than for those of men. In —.ying that “ I kept the cask covered when not in use Jest stock should drink from it,” and that “it never occurred to me that men would use its contents for drinking," I quite, I believe, made dear my meaning to the jury, as I had already pointed out the appearance of the cask to them. This being dirty and incrusted with arsenic inside and out, was so uninviting in appearance as to justify my assertion no man would be suspected of drinking from it, even without a warning and the knowledge (which all the men possessed) that sheep were being dressed at the shed with a poisonous liquor. The object of my warning with regard to the cask was to prevent its contents being used for the washing of dishes, or the persons of men. When cautioning the men against using anything they found at the shed, 1 used the words, “ .Everything here is poisonous.” I also pointed out where good water was to be obtained. The very man who is now dead was spoken to by Mr Shaw, and stopped the warning that was being given to him by saying, “O! Mr Poynter lias told us all about this arsenic.”

But enough of this. I will no longer dwell upon the precautions I took against accident. I simply point to the verdict of the jury, with the rider they attach, stating that I had in their opinion given sufficient warning. The Coroners’ Act provides that twelve intelligent men shall inquire into the facts of any death that occurs suddenly or violently ; and the Government of the country considers that these twelve men will well and truly decide upon all questions relative to the death, and make all requisite enquiries. Twelve men met, and acted to the best of their judgment in this case, and you—you forsooth—take it upon yourself to say tliat their judgment was wrong, and in the face of their rider to state that 1 was grossly careless and blameable, and to question why the constabulary officers did not do so and so, why such and such questions were asked, and so on. Pray let me ask what gift of omniscience you possess, or what power of discrimination enables you, who were not present, to judge this matter better than those twelve men, who were perhaps on an average equally intelligent with yourself. These words occur in your article in reference to my evidence. “ Here is a direct testimony on oath.” “ There seems to be a strange inconsistency.” “ (That by the way was merely stating a truism.) ” I maintain that this is equivalent to stating in the first sentence, that had I not been on oath I was capable of misrepresenting the matter: in the second that I have misrepresented it: and in the third, that I make a merit of telling Capt. Richardson simply that arsenic was a dangerous thing, implying that I said no more. Let your and my readers judge of the fairness of these deductions..

As to your words : “We do not by any process of reasoning intend to impute a criminal design, or a seeking to entrap the lives of men,” I assert that upon the principles of damning with faint praise, this is almost equivalent to stating that I committed a deliberate murder. The sympathy that you extend to me in my remorse'and heavy care, I look upon as a piece of impertinence.

In conclusion let me inform you that at least one considerable section of the community look upon-your paper solely as an useful medium of advertisement, to obtain which, support was given to you in the first instance; and that your views on general topics are simply passed over, with perhaps sometimes a smile; but where you particularize persons, and record local events, your inaccuracy and ill-judged remarks are perforce called in question. I wish you to understand that I do not intend to answer any more articles on the above subject.

I am, sir Waeranga-a-hika.

JAS. B. POYKTBB.