THE FORCIBLE ENTRY CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1049, 30 December 1882, Page 1

THE FORCIBLE ENTRY CASE.

TO Till; I'ODITUIt. fc>iit —From having wild iii Tuesday's issue of the 1 "JLh inst llic account of the case on Monday, the 18th instant, between W. McCitnn, plaintiff, and James Blyth and George Bolton, defendants, re forcible entry at Arowhenua. I wish to draw the attention of your readers to a few facts which as they now appear before the public seem to be very paradoxical, but are nevertheless true

when kept in their proper place accordto the evidence given. Plaintiff, upon cross examination regarding the way in which the defendants opened the gate. His Worship said to plaintiff ' You stated first they smashed the gate, next they forced it open in a forcible manner, and now you say you were not present.' The facts here stated are perfectly true had (hey been kept in toe o»'der by the Be/icli in which they were giv'< a by" plaintiff in his evidence, but as they arc placed in the order by the Bench in which they appear before the public they are misleading, paradoxical, and untrue. The smashing of the gate was the last act at night when they were leaving the stockyard with the cattle, and not the first as described by the Bench. The forcing of the gate open in a forcible manner was the first act in the evening, at about 7 o'clock p.m., and not the last as the Bench say, and as to my not being present as the Bench is pleased to charge me with, I said that I said I was not close enough to discern whether one of the three that rushed the gate threw the chain off with which it was fastened or not, and here the Bench makes the enquiry from its own statements of the evidence ' What conclusion is it to come to ?' Sir, I ask if it is the province of the Bench to contort evidence, misplace facts,and contradict plain truths as an oppos.ng counsel would. We (the public) might well enquire what conclusions are we to come to. If (he Bench are not to come to conclusions from the evidence before them, where arc they to get them ? There are personal interests to be secured and protected, if Courts of Justice do not administer the law upon the principle of equity between man and man, and not upon their own fevered ideas as in the case before us.—l am, etc.,

Wm. McCann Arowhenua, December 22, 1882.