TO THE EDITOR.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1330, 17 July 1883, Page 3

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —Your Ormond correspondent in his weekly letter of Saturday last imagines he has the “laugh of a good Gardiner,” and renders you what “he considers a correct story.” 1 defy him to prove his report being correct. “The constable did not order ’ the market gardiner, or yet the horticulturist, or even the ungrammatical Edward, to destroy the dog. As to engaging the said ungrammatical Mr Edward to write my letters, I am thankful to state, thanks to my parents, that I am able to write and compile my own letters sufficiently to convey common sense, even to such a thick-head as your Ormond correspondent. As far as ‘ ‘ cruelty to animals that such another case to a dumb animal will not occur in the district, your correspondent may have forgotten when a mania seized him for cheap honey, how he obtained the same ? Not by cruelty ; oh, dear no. The sentimental correspondent could not commit any act of cruelty, but to obtain the honey and get rid of the poor bees--he thought they were eels or of the fishery kind, and liked water—he consequently gave the brutes of bees a dose of the same. You bet the bees recovered this kind treatment, and are still making more honey for Sentimental to feed himself with. Query. Your readers will confess that these moans of taking honey from thsae brutes of bees was most effectual, and this was how It was done. Trusting you will have room for the ungrammatical Edward's letter—-no, I mean the humble Chahlsr GaRDINKR-