CLARK V. DICKSON.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1323, 30 June 1883, Page 2

CLARK V. DICKSON.

TO THE EDITOR. “ Press not a falling man too far.” Sir,—I was certainly surprised to see by Tuesday’s Standard, a misleading epistle in the form of a leader. Surely the Colony of New Zealand must be void of interesting subjects when the case of Clark v. Dickson occupies the leading column of a newspaper, any person glancing at the article, and subsequently knowing the particulars of the case, Would at once come to the conclusion that the writer (to say the least) knew very little about it, save and except the one-sided evidence given by Dickson, Dufaur, Donald Murray, and Charley Priestly. The Standard’s editor, if In Gisborne at that romantic time, Would, I know, be of & different opinion, but newspapers, like witnesses, are not iufallable, and neither is the leader in Tuesday’s Standard. The article is solely based on the one-sided evidence of the witnesses fur the defence, whereas there were about twenty witnesses for the plaintiff, none of which were called, otherwise the Standard would not have pandered to the one side. Mr. Dioks'in is well known to be the defendant, Mr. Dufaur (representing Mr. Rogan who was ill) being Mr. Dickson’s adviser at the time, Donald Murray, Mr. Dickson’s bookkeeper, and Mr. Priestly, who at the time was seldom seen sober. Such are George Clarke’s accusers— a nice little kettle of fish. Mr. Dufaur acknowledged he was acting for both Dickson and Clark, Cei• tainly he was ; but Dickson had sense and Clarke had none, Dickson had money but Clarke had none, Dickson had friends but Clarke had none. Dickson could purchase law, but poor Clarke could not, Dickson had sly Dufaur, Clarke had Mr. Rogan (who was B k) and Dufaur acting for him. Dickson WisJacub and Clarke Was Es *u—and so he lost his birthright by the cunningness of a few who, by fair words and foul deeds, decs ved the simple. Still the Standard, by the bare fact of the one-sided evidence, represents matters as if they were founded on facts. “Man’s inhumanity toman” is fully evidenced by the above case, in thatmild and bland manner, Byron relates in his “Don Juan” would apply to Dickson. “He was the mildest mannered man ” “ That ever scuttled ship or cut a threat.” The Standard’s editor is merely a stranger to the case, and therefore should be very cautious till he hears the evidence in favour of George Clarke at the next sittings of the Supreme Court. I am, Ac., Truth.