THE WHAU RING—"VICTIM" IN REPLY.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3458, 24 January 1880, Page 2

THE WHAU RING—"VICTIM" IN REPLY.

(To the Editor of the Evening Stab.)

Sir,—My little f ffusion in your paper of Wednesday brought out a perfect torrent of abuse on my unfortunate head in the Advertiser of the following day. ■"■Commercial," " Thomas Horsbrugh," and " Shareholder," all attack me on different grounds. One says I am a victim of monomania and an idiot, another more mildly called me designing, while the old gentleman, who " never before wrote in a public print," has the temerity to call me a pestilent liar, and other hard names. Before going further I should advise Mr Horsbrugh never to write again, his first effusion being coarse, and discreditable to such an old man. But all this cyclone of spite does not deny the assertion that the forfeiture of the shares was illegal. " Commercial," with the professional glibeness of an under andover man. tries to deny my statement, but fails woefully. The legal manager's letter, which might be supposed to give some light only vouchsafes to say that I make a lying assertion, and then proceeds to give a sort of summarised history of the mine, containing the necessary amount of adulation to messieurs the directors. " Shareholder's '' effusion is a very stupid one, and scarcely worth noticing. He tries to make a point by challenging me to subscribe my name. This lam not at all afraid to do, but I don't feel inclined that way. If " Commercial" or " Shareholder " will write showing me that the forfeiture was strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, I will feel deeply grateful, and will apologise for anything I may hare said to offend.—l am. &c,

' Victim.