MY £40.
(To the Editor of the EreningStsr.)
Sik, —The following letter wa» read at the Borough Council, and I ask you to publish it in your columns :—" Thames, May 31, 1880.—To the Mayor and Councillors Borough oi Thames. Gentlemen, —Acting under suggestion contained in your reply to my application for refund of license money, dated 22nd October, 1880, I ha?e the honor to inform you that I hare received the following reply from the Hon. Mr Dick, acting for the Minister of Justice, dated 26th April. 1881:—' If you consider yourself entitled to a refund of the amount in question, you should apply to the Thames Borough Council to whom the money was paid. As the license was issued by the Collector of Customs, and paid over by him to the Council, the Justice Department has nothing to do with the matter. —I am, &c, &c.' I need hardly say to you gentlemen, that I do consider myself entitled to a refund of the money, and also consider myself unjustly and cruelly used in being deoarred the privilege for which it was paid, deprived and thrown out of employment for the last twelve months, involved pecuniarily in the purchase of buildings, ground rent, and taxes, for the next nine years, which are now of no use to me, whatever, and ultimately forced to leave tke place I have been identified with from its earliest infancy. I may also add that I hare accepted bills for this
and other amounts, and for which I am paying interest, and draw your particular attention to the length of time that has elapsed through the circumlocution of Government correspondence and red tapeism.—l have, &c, S. Stbphenson." After some discussion, it was moved, and seconded by Councillors Osborne and Veale, " That they decline to refund the money." Now, sir, I ask is this honest or fair, that a corporate body, well knowing that the money was paid for a specific purpose and privilege, and that I was denied by the .Resident Magistrate to exercise that privilege—it seems to me like obtaining money under false pretences to stick to it under the plea that it is not legal to return it. Sir, I apprehend that corporate bodies are like individuals, supposed to be honest —if not, they ought to be, and have no right to make use of ill-gotten gains, by whatsoever means it may come into their hands, leaving out of the question' the hardship, and despoiling one of its own citizens of his. means', viz., the payment of a sum of money (£4O) for a license t* carry on the business of hotel keeper, which license was denied by the Licensing Magistrate, for his own reasons, be they just or uDjust, and for which I received no value. They also referred me to the Minister of Justice, and the extract from his letter after the expiration of seven months, tells them (the Borough Council) that, they received the money and ought to refund it. I ask the ratepayers of the Borough of Thames will they sanction or allow one of their own citizens to be plundered in this manner, or will they assist me to make this cormorant Borough disgorge from its ravenons maw money they are not entitled to, and restore it to its legitimate owner.—l am, &c,
Samubi Stefhenson Beach Eoad, June 10th.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THS18810611.2.17.1
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3885, 11 June 1881, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
562MY £40. Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3885, 11 June 1881, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.