ANOTHER CONTRADICTION.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1335, 28 July 1883, Page 2

ANOTHER CONTRADICTION.

TO THE EDITOR. 3ib, —Allow me to congratulate the Land Company’s paper, the Poverty Bay evening “ Herald,” upon having taken a fresh departure from the truth. The paper must have brought its type from Ananias and received its instructions from Sapphire, for somehow or other it cannot tell the truth even when it tries—which is seldom. The story related by the “ Herald ” as to the Pakowhai survey is false. Whet was stated iu “ Facts ”is the true and correct version, and comes from Hemi Wake and Tepora, his wife, direct, and we all know them to be truthful—so much so that they put the Company and its employe’s to shame. The truth is that Mr. Mackay went to the Murewai to endeavour to persuade the Natives to listen to a palaver from Mr. W. L. Rees, Hemi Waka, on behalf of the Natives, replied “No I we want no survey and no talk.” They are determined to go on with their case in the Supreme Court, and take Pakowhai, Tangotete, and Te Kuri out of the clutches of their would be despoilers. It was afterwards said, 1 believe, while Mr. Mackay was holding the Natives in talk the suiveyors were going on with their work in secret in another portion of the block, a proceeding which, if true, which 1 very much doubt, is just what might be expected of their employers, but i. fleets anything but credit upon them. You will be pleased to learn that the writs against Messrs Rees and DeLautor are issued, 1 do not know if they are yet served, in the Paremata Block. Mr DeLautour’s action against myself for libel (identical with the late one by Mr Rees) is at a temporary standstill, I think, through informality in the complaint. I was anxious to have it set down for Monday, but 1 am afraid 1 cannot. There is a report current that they are moving all the influence they pof'sessto change the venue to Christchurch. As 1 am calling something over 200 witnesses, and to pay their fares there and back would cost over L2OOO without other expenses, I shall resist any such attempt to the utmost of my power, and 1 don’t think the Judges or tho Government will aid in such a prostitution of political influence to private ends as such a proceeding would be. Their object, of course, is to gag my mouth as much as possible—and gag the Press as well. If a Royal Commission is granted we shall not hear much more of the libel actions, J! would point out to you the vast injustice of allowing such one-sided proceedings as these to be carried out. There has been no libel— and there be a libel— l challenged the large bodies, not private individuals, and I certainly challenge the large bodies still.-—I am, &0., Kenneth Kerr,