TURF CLUB MEETING, 1875.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 239, 16 January 1875, Page 2

TURF CLUB MEETING, 1875.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —We (“ Post and Rail”) thought that we should be too stiff for “Sportsman” (what a misnomer I) and knew that we would bring him up standing, and that he would commence “ railing,” when a far too strong obstacle came in our way. We have a good impression that the more humane “ clever folks” would have assisted in framing a presentable programme, and have given the benefit of their “ enlightened ideas,” had not the meeting in the first instance been convened for the quondam “ Turf Club” only, thereby ignoring general subscribers. Sportsman, (save us) has baulked at our object or intention, because he knows we are right, and he can’t get over us. We don’t want to become a barrier to sport or amusement, but we have a lively reminiscence of former efforts of hacks and their riders jeopardising their lives and limbs over us ; and it is our regard for them that compels us to make a formidable resistance against being used for such a purpose, setting aside our own total destruction. What! “ The object of the race was that of bringing out, and encouraging the breeding of good serviceable hacks suitable for crossing country”!!! Crossing country in Poverty Bay.! Ah! Ah! Ah! (raillery and good humored irony from wire fencing.) Hacks fencing us indeed ! Why some of the “ thorough breds” here, carrying racing weights, cannot be induced to jump our more fragile relation the “ hurdle,” at his legitimate height 3ft 9 in. but that he must be “ hacked” and lowered 3 inches.

With the choice of “course,” we, simply common posts and rails, have nothing to do, so long as we are not put upon it aud taken

out of our usual track of usefulness. Our advice and warning to “ Sportsman” is, if he attempts to ride “ rough shod” over, or through us, he will most assuredly come to grief, either by sudden death, or that the remainder of lus natural, but unhappy term of existence will be rendered exceedingly Maudlin. Silt, —In answer to a letter (which I suppose to be “ Observer’s” although he has forgotten to sign it,) in yesterday’s Herald, which still persists in asserting a wilful falsehood, 1 have merely to state that my quotations in your paper of the 9th inst., were correct as regards my sale of horses. “ Observer” states still that only one horse was sold and the rest withdrawn, which is false. I have given him every opportunity to correct his error but no 1 convince a man against his will, &c. Why does he not sign his own name to his effusions unless he is ashamed of either the one or the other ? Why does he not go to the Stani>abd where the report originally appeared, and let the editor of that paper dress him down ? He evidently likes to see himself in print, and puts me in mind of Ihe frog in the fable who swell’<l till he burst, trying to become an ox ; and I think it possible that “ Observer’s” lofty genius will come to the same end. Mr. Editor, I will not take up more of your valuable space by answering an anonymous correspondent, although he is known. The public can at all limes satisfy themselves as to lite truth of my quotations by calling at my office, where they can see the purchasers’ names with the prices attached. lam a plain man and like plain dealing and no humbug; but as for ” Observer” who appears to like falsehood better than truth, 1 intend to treat all his effusions for the future with the contempt they deserve.—lam, &e.. W. Robertson. [We should advise Mr. Robertson to take the anonymous writing to which he alludes, whence it came, as the old woman did the kick from the donkey.—Ed. P. B. A’.] Silt, —In reply to “ Observer” or any other man, I hereby certify 'hat I saw Mr. Robertson sell one horse for £ 17, also one for £5 10s one for £8 and one for £9 15s, on the date alluded to in your report. —I am, &e., 0. G. Goldsmith.