CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 288, 10 July 1875, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

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

LETTERS TO THB EDITOR. Sir,—Now that the Waikenae bridge is erected could you inform me who paid for it ? Did the District Highway Board pay the £3O long promised towards its erection ? Or have the committee paid the money out of their own pockets ? I know that they only collected about £4O, and the contract price was £65. If the committee did pay it, I say more power to them, and, as one of the subscribers, I think they oiight to give the public a proper statement of affairs, and especially as this coming week will be ofie of reckoning with some of our public servants. It would be very pleasing to hear the statement of the committee and give them a vote of confidence for erecting the said bridge.—l am, &e., Subsobibbb. Gisborne, July 9,1875;

Sib, —In reading the account of the proceedings of the Licensing Court the other flay, in your paper, I was somewhat surprised to see the name of John Villers mentioned as one of two who had received a “ caution.” That a little of such a good thing as caution will do no landlord any harm may perhaps be argued with truth, but in the present case I fail to see why John Villers was one of the two selected. Though possessing the opportunity, I have failed to note the “drunkenness” reported by Captain Gudgeon, nor do I know anyone else (save himself) who has remarked it. It may be that my idea of drunkenness is somewhat imperfect, as against that of Captain Gudgeon; but this is, perhaps, due to the fact that I have only to visit another house to see it in an infinitely more developed form, where on most Sunday afternoons it is to be seen in all its stages, and adjacent to Which there is, amongst other industries, a saddle and bridle manufactory. As all this passes unchallenged, one might almost be inclined to think that Captain Gudgeon substituted the name of the one for that of the other by mistake. The report of Captain Gudgeon, as made to -he Licensing Court, was, I think, of a most original cliurater, and in no way calculated to do any good while it may do harm, as is fully shown by 41>e Standard’s comment in its issue of Saturday last; and, apart from the direct contradiction given to it by the landlord accused, the report was simply no report at all. I hope that what I have written will not be construed into a complaint, “ being in no way desirous of constituting myself a moral broom wherewith to sweep public houses,” but rather as a comparison between the one who did.and the one who did not receive a caution, —l am, &c., Matteb-oy-Fact.