IN REPLY TO MR MILLER.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3882, 8 June 1881, Page 2

IN REPLY TO MR MILLER.

(To the Editor of the Evening Star.)

Sib, —Permit me, through the columns of your paper, to reply to a letter signed "J. A. Miller " in your morning content, porary of yesterday. Some time since Mr Miller thought Bt to rush into print in another matter that did not concern him, and prefaced his remarks by saying that he was not usually in the habit of doing so. Perhaps in this instance he may have good reasons for doing so again. I do not see why my esteemed friend Mr Miller should be Mr Kenrick's champion, inasmuch as he is well aware that on more than one occasion during the hearing of the case did he say, "That if It could be proved that any portion of the 1.0.U' was not for liquor supplied, there was an end of the matter;" and not only that, but mL the presence of several gentlemen, after judgment v-au giveu, did he express himself surprised at the decision arrived

at by Mr Kenrick, and, farther than that, I am led to believe, informed my solicitor that he fully expected, especially from Mr Kenrick's summing up and the prevarication of his own client, that I would have got a judgment, bat there was no dependence to be placed on Mr Kenrick's ruling. Ergo, it would appear, ao far as Mr Miller is concerned, that it was no love for his client that induced him to insert the letter he did; but no doubt it may suit his book to keep straight with the R.M. I have nevor interfered in any of Mr Miller's private matters; on the contrary, have always been very favourably inclined towards him. Now for the truth of Mr Miller's assertions: The native did not say that he did not owe mcii anything for cash lent, and Mr Miller, in his letter, admits this, inasmuch as he says I lent him 3s, which he spent in Endres' hotel. The native did not say that he did not recollect signing the 1.0. U. Quite the, contrary, he not'only admitted signing it (which signature the BM. admitted was better than that written on paper: in the Court), but said that a mate of his was with him at the time he signed it. The statement by Mr Miller that there were several pointß in my case anything but satisfactory, is, to say the least of it, as untrue as it is spiteful, and cannot be borne out even by the R.M.s notes. I never said that the 1.0. U. was taken for.the r purpose of handing it to Douglas in part payment of my account; and further, never said that X handed it to Douglas the same day it war signed. The 1.0. U. was taken in August, and handed to Mr Douglas on the 6th November following. When I took the native to Douglas' store, he admitted that the document was genuine, in the presence of Mr Douglas, and he would pay it out of monies coming to him from Mr Murdoch. In conclusion, permit me to say that "I have no desire to; perpetuate "jt paper war with Mr Miller, bat I certainly fail to see why be should have entered into this controversy, it being a matter clearly between Mr Kenrick and myself, and my friend Mr Miller may find at no. distant date, that he has tak;en up a subject that he would have shewn more prudence in leaving alone.—l am, Ac., H. Mgllhonk.

Bth June, 1881.