WATT V. HASTIE.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Issue 33, 7 January 1899, Page 2

WATT Y. HASTIE.

(tO *»■ 3CDITOR). Si*, — By the factitious use of inverted commas you have made it appear as if I had said tht reverse of what I did Bay. In the suction, which you substitute, in the passage quoted from tny letter, the offence is, »mvin« a horse without reins upon a road, etc. In the section referring to graving the offence is, tEnmitnu} cattle to be grazed, etc. .This in itself shows that I have put the right construction on the Act. If it had intended to tnake the owner ef a horse liable for its being driven without reins by his servant, it would have made liable every person pjerkittimg a. horse to be so driven. Instead of this, it says the perron who drives is liable. I did not contend that one person is to be held liable for an offence for which another person it made liable, but I did contend that the Act actually made tht owner of the cattle liable as being the person permitted his cattle to be grazed contrary U the Act. I also showed that it was a recognised principle in law that the use of the word " permit " had this effect. Your misquoting of me, therefore, with a view to showUg the " absurdity " of my contention merely recoilu upon yourself, as is usually the case is using unfamiliar weapons, but I regret the Adtsjhtikk skould have attempted such means oi redeeming itself from having made an egregious " bloomer " as it must now see, though it will not admit, it has made. This is not in accordance with the high sounding principles it announced in its first numbers. — I am, etc.,

[It is simply not tine that we bj any means,*- or in the slightest degiee, vari«d quotations from Mr Hamilton'i letter. Our quotations were exact and full and properly indicated. If they did not convey his mean, ing the fault is not ouik. The lest of his letter calls for no comment. When he sees u in cold type be will probably legiet the uiattei and manner of it. — Ei>.J