AN EXPLANATION. (To the Editor.)

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 282, 26 June 1873, Page 6

AN EXPLANATION. (To the Editor.)

Sib, — Observing a notice in your last week's issue warning me against opening any letters addressed to me as Secretary of Court Havelock, I beg briefly to state that I held the position of Secretary to the above Court for a considerable period, until the commencement of the present year, during which time I faithfully performed the duties attached to the officp, and only resigned through my having employment out of the district. I may also explain the reason for the insertion of the notice referred to. My daughter received a letter from the post office addressed to me, in my name, from another province of New Zealand, and on handing it to her mother, without the slightest attention to the address which followed after my own name, she opened it, which, letter I handed over to *,he present Secretary as soon after as I met him. The letter was simply opened through a thoughtless oversight in not noticing what words followed my name bn the envelope. I therefore feel very much hurt that the Court should have used so extreme and unwarranted a course under the circumstances, which I can only conclude has been done to personally injure me, there being other means they might,

could, or should have pursued and adopted, according to their laws, if they had thought that the letter had been opened wilfully or otherwise, by summoning me to attend before a judicial committee of the Court when, after explanation, they could have suspended, expelled me, or otherwise. They could have written to the postmaster intimating that I no longer held the office of Secretary to their Court ; but, instead of any such action being adopted, I never received the least notice in writing or otherwise from the Court, to allow me an opportunity of explaining myself, but about the time the coach had arrived at Havelock with your paper just issued, the present Secretary met me and told me he was very sorry, but he had been instructed to send a notice to your paper bearing upon me. Now, Sir, taking such circumstances into consideration, I certainly do think that, as the opening of the letter was a thoughtless mistake, the course pursued by the Court has been both unwarranted and injurious, and not in accordance with the laws of the brotherhood, but a fjumping at the 'first conclusion to personally injure me, which I have not the slightest doubt the district officers will make them aware of. Trusting you will kindly insert this in your next issue as protection to myself. — I am, &c. GEOEaE Heath. Havelock, June 16th.