CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 291, 21 July 1875, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

Our columns are open for free discussion; but we do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents, :o: TO THE EDITOB. Sib, —I see by your issue of the 30th of June, that Captain Gudgeon complained of the way John Villers conducted his house, and that drunkenness was common on Sundays ; and when John Villers denied the charge Captain Gudgeon threatened to substantiate it by evidence.

Now if there was any cause for complaint against the Chandos Hotel or the proprietor that was worth the making, why did not Captain Gudgeon provide evidence to prove it, and do away with a badly conducted house at once ? Or, at least, show some reason why he (J.V.) should receive “ a caution ” from the Bench ? Sergeant Mills is supposed to look after the Public houses, and I suppose he reports to Captain Gudgeon any thing irregular he may see; and if Captain Gudgeon based his complaint on Sergeant Mills’ report, why not produce it, and show the grounds for complaint. Captain Gudgeon said too much or too little—enough to jeopardise a man’s living, and not enough to prove he had a reason for it; in fact the whole thing reads to me like spite. I think I know Mr. Villers better than any one in Poverty Bay, and can likewise speak confidently ns to the management of his house, which I here fearlessly assert is second to none in the place, but I hare no doubt, if Captain Gudgeon thinks lie could conduct it better Mr. Villers will give him the chance, cheap. Any one keeping a Public house is liable to have drunken men about the place on Sundays, without the proprietor being to blame. People get drink at other houses, and as Villers is in tho habit of keeping them outside his house on Sundays, it is, perhaps, the reason why it came undei* the gallant Captain’s notice, as he can see the front of this particular house from his own door. I hope you will forgive me Mr. Editor for taking up so much of your valuable time and paper, but this is a matter from which a private man is likely to suffer through the incompleteness of an official charge, or, what is worse, a private feud : that is my only excuse for this letter.—Yours, &c., Geo. Davis. Sib,—“FairPlay” in bis letter of Wednesday last is, I think, to use his own phrase, “ rather incompatible.” What good the unsubstantiated report of Captain Gudgeon against John Villers did, or was likely to do, I still fail to see, while on the other hand it has done harm ; not, perhaps, to the poison rebuked—though his re-license might have been wrongfully withheld—but to the police authorities, as they must see by this time. The comparison I drew between tho Chandos and another hotel was drawn solely to note the utter absence of fair play in the matter. I seek to involve no one; nor does John Villers want any shielding. Regarding what “ Fair Play” says about establishing the charge, &c., I prefer to leave that to those who are paid to perform those duties, with this advice—that in future they tax their inventive faculties less and depend more upon impartial observation, when, I have no doubt, they will find themselves constrained to act with more fair play. In my last, nothing was meant to reflect upon the Ormond Hotel; the saddle and bridle making referred to is carried on out of doors after nightfall.—Youre, Ac., Matter of Fact.