CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1092, 27 June 1882, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

[IFe do not hold ourxelven rexpowtible for opinions expressed by our correspondents.'] TO TUB EDITOR. Sir, —Last Sunday morning as I was taking a a quiet walk down one of our by-etreets, I observed a respectable vendor of milk iil-treating bis horse in a most brutal manner. The poor beast had offended his “ kind ’* master by quietly walking on as he had been accustomed to do and not stopping immediately he was required, and for so offending received a most severe thrashing. Not content with that, the inhuman brute, with a heavy whin, gave tho offending animal several heavy blows on the head. Now Sir, I think it is high time we have a Society here for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Such offenders as the one I have alluded to should bo brought tho R.M., and heavily fined. — Yours, etc., A Witness. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —During my attendance at Holy Trinity Church since my arrival here, I have frequently noticed a lot of giggling going on between persons who move in what is termed “ high society," or the “ hupper suckles," and wl.o ought to know better. Last Sunday one of the above-mentioned persons, a regular attendant, commenced as usual to attract tho attention of his lady friends, and so far succeeded in his efforts as to cause one young lady to so far forget herself as to burst out laughing. Surely such conduct ought to be put down at once by the Vestry, or I, for one, shall discontinue my visits if such notice is not enforced.—Yours, &c., Churchman. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I notice in this evening’s “ Herald ” a telegram from “it’s own correspondent" at Napier, relative to tho case of Willis v. Davis, heard in the Supreme Court there, last Saturday. It is therein stated that “as recently us last Wednesday defendant paid the amount with £lO for expenses.” If evidence to that effect was given at the triai. which is probable, I am authorised by my client, Mr Davis, to state that such is contrary to the fact as regards the payment by Mr Davis, for he satisfied Mr Willis's claim nearly twelve months ago, by delivering to him an order on Read’s Trustees for the payment of £230, which was accepted. Read’s Trustees paid this amount, not Mr Davis; and the former now hold a release in full satisfaction of all demands, etc. —Yours &c., Hugh J. Finn, Defendant’s Solicitor. Gisborne, June 20th, 1882.