The Southland Times. TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1866.

Southland Times, Volume VII, Issue 540, 14 August 1866, Page 2

The Southland Times. TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1866.

From an official notice we learn that in consequence of newspapers being posted in dupUcate or in packages of a stiU larger number, they have been detained at the chief Post-office. We would therefore call the particular attention of our readers to the following rule, which we understand wiU be strictly carried out, viz: — " Newspapers for transmission within the colony shall be posted in single numbers, so put up that the date of pubUcation may be readUy seen. Packages of newspapers consisting of f more than one number, shaU be treated as book packets." It is with regret we learn from our telegrams that the " Zephyr" has been unable to prosecute her trip to Horbart Town. When she left the New River, she was considered thoroughly seaworthy, and her owners expected she would make a splendid trip, although they had decided upon putting her on the sUp in Tasmania to be more completely repaired, than the appliances in InvereargUl permitted ; and one of the owners (Mr Livesey), left by the Otago on Saturday last, en route for Hobart Town to superintend the work. We perceive that a cargo of Peruvian Guano has arrived, consigned to Messrs Morison, Law and Co. As spring is setting in our farmers wUI have the opportunity to supply themselves at a very appropriate time with this valuable artiole for farming purposes. The " Grey River Argus," 2nd August, in a leader strongly opposing any movement having for its object • the Separation of Westland from Canterbury, says : — " The announcement made in the House of Representatives, , that Mr. Hall, of Christchurch, had intimated his intention of bringing in a BUI to separate Westland from the Province of Canterbury, is so astounding that we may weU wonder whether the honorable member is not perpetrating a huge joke on the people of Westland. That Mr. HaU — the creme de la creme of Christchurch conservatism, should bring forward such a proposition, is something so opposed to the traditional policy of his school, that we are involved in a maze of speculation as to the motives which have impeUed him thus to gravely advocate the dismemberment of Canterbury." The case of the PoUce v. Broad for neglecting to keep clean his chimney, was tried at the Police Court yesterday, when the defendant was fined 40s and costs. This wiU put the matter that " Observer " alluded to in a letterj in om* yesterdays issue at rest. The Resident Magistrate ruling that a chimney on fire is prima facia evidence of its foulness.