CORRESPONDENCE.
[Our columns are open for free discussion ; but we do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents.]
to the editor. Sir —Allow me to correct an error in your report of Saturday, re Parnell v. Dalziell. The machine which I supplied was proved by me to be perfect in every respect, and was acknowledged by defendant to have been worked in his presence immediately before leaving my shop. The only plea set up by the defendant was that the needles which I supplied him with some time afterwards were not suitable, being Grover and Baker’s instead of Singer’s. On this “ needleless ” plea, after the expiration of a month, the machine was returned to me in a dilapidated state ; and as compensation for the damage done, I am allowed to keep the machine and pay my costs 1 ! ! —I am, &c., Arthur Parnell. [There is no error in our report; but our correspondent is slightly in error himself. He may have “ proved that the machine was perfect in every respect,” but the Magistrate most distinctly gave judgment against him because it was not so proven to his (the Magistrate’s) satisfaction. We reported according to evidence, merely.—Ed. P.8.5.~\
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBS18731126.2.14
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 108, 26 November 1873, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
200CORRESPONDENCE. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 108, 26 November 1873, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in