APOLOGY.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9, 8 May 1912, Page 6

APOLOGY.

In our issue of the 23rd April we published a letter signed “T. L. Paget,” with regard to the then ponding’Mayoral contest, in which it was implied’that Mr. Jonas Masters am. Mr. N. J. King dominated, or attempted to dominate, the Borough Council, for their own ends, and to the serious detriment of the business of the Borough. The statement was made in regard to the proposal that the Council should acquire the undertaking of the Stratford Electric Light Company, Limited. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that the passage in question may be considered as defamatory of Mr. Master; and Mr. King. We desire to say that we are satisfied that, in any action that may have been taken or proposed by the Council in connect 1 on with tnc proposed purchase, Messrs. Masters and King, as Mayor and Councillor respectively, were actuated solely by a aesiro to do what was best for the interests of the Borough. We regret very much that wc should have published a letter containing the .sugges- . lion that they were influencing the Council to serve their own ends, and to the detriment of the Borough, a suggestion for which wo frankly admit there is no justification, and wo regret the annoyance caused to Mr. Masters and Mr. King by such publication. Dated the Bth day cf May, 1912. Stratford Printing and Publishing Go., Limited. ARTHUR E. COPPING, Manager. APOLOGY. In the “Stratford Evening Post” of the 23rd April appeared a letter signed and written by mo with regard to the then pending Mayoral contest, in widen it was .stated that Mr. Jonas Masters and Mr. N. J. King dominated, or attempted to dominate, the Borough Council for their own ends, and to the serious detriment of the business of the Borough. The statement was made in regard to the proposal that the Counc.i should acquire the undertaking of the Stratford Electric Light Company, Limited. Tne solicitors of Mr. Masters and Mr. King have written to me. pointing out that the passage ill question can be read to mean “for their own private ends,” and if so read, is a libel upon both the gentlemen named. I desire to say that I am satisfied that, in any action that may have been_ taken, or proposed, by the Council, in connection with the proposed purchase, Messrs. Masters and King, as Mayor and Councillor respectively, were actuated .solely by a desire to do wnat they thought best for the interest of the Borough. I very much regret that J should have so worded the letter as to possibly convey the suggestion that they were influencing the Council to serve their own private ends, a suggestion for which .1 admit there is no justification whatever, and which J had no intention of maxing. I therefore most willingly make jt-his apology to Mr. Masters and Mr, King for having so worded and published the letter in question, and for any annoyance or pain that they may have suffered by reason of such, publication.' I need only add that had Messrs. Masters and King approached me personally I should have been just as ready to correct an unwitting error as I now am when! approached by their solicitors. Dated at Strafford, this Bth day of May, 1912. (Signed) T. L, PAGET.