AN EXPLANATION.
[to the editor.]
Sir,- -Your report of tho caso in the li.M- Court, in which I was implicated, reads as if it wan admitted on all sides that I called MrjDavidaou an “informer.’ - This is not correct. Mr Davidson swore I called him an “ informer,” hut I swore I did not, and the words I used wore “it was a mistake to arrest men like Messrs McCuskill and llooney on the information of an informer/’ to which I added
in cross examination by Mr White that I did not believe Mr Davidson had anything to'do with laying the information and that therefore I could not call him an informer. * The grounds on which your repoit sajs the case was dismissed is that ic was “doubtful whether any more violent or improper language was employed ” than informer, which makes it appear that I was convicted 0 f that offence, but that the Court did not think it sufficiently serious to inflict a fine. Now, sir, that conveys a very improper idea of the case, and I trust that, in order to put mo right with you readers, you will publish this correction. —I am, &c., m J. M. Twomey. ficinuka, May 3, 1882.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SCANT18820504.2.15.2
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
South Canterbury Times, Issue 2842, 4 May 1882, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
204AN EXPLANATION. South Canterbury Times, Issue 2842, 4 May 1882, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in