CORRESPONDENCE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1759, 12 August 1884, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor, Sir.—l am laboring under a grievance with which I think ratepayers in the Borough of Master-ton should be made aware with a view to some romedy being found for it. I understood that as a ratepayer in the Borough I was, on payment of a fee of five shillings entitled to obtain from the Masterton Institute any book I might choose. You may judge of my surprise when informed that under some rule made by the Committee I could not pay my subscription and take my books until the first of October next. Therefore, notwithstanding I have paid my rates for last year, I shall have to wait until the expiration of four months, before I am graciously allowed to get a book to which I consider I am entitled as a ratepayer on payment ot my rates, and the prescribed fee. I think you will agree with me that the sooner such a state of things is altered, the sooner justice will be done to those who wish: to subscribe. I cannot suppose that I am the only ratepsyer who is laboring under the same disadvantage, and-1 hope if there are others, they will join with mc in getting such a state of things rectified. I am 4c, . i Ratepayer. P.S.—I find on enquiry that Mr Price has tabled a motion on the subject, and hope the matter will receive due attention at the next meeting of the Committee.

To the Editor,

Sir,—ln reply to Mr Sutton's letter of the 19th July, I may say that I fail to see that there was anything in ray letter of the 15th July to justify Mr Sutton in the use of such coarse and ungentleinanly expressions. I did not mention Mr Beetham by name as the friend who had placed me under the Ejreat personal obligation, but he is certainly a proved friend of many years standing. As far as my telling "unmitigated falsehoods" to injure him (Sutton), the enclosed statement of oases will be the best answer. I did not mention Inspector Eichardson's name when Mr Sutton told me on the 18th August 1881,' that he did not require ray assistance any longer. Mr Richardson was ■not acting in North Wairarapa, at least, I never knew the reason why Inspector Richardson was sent up for a short time after Inspector Sutton was appointed, but I do know that Mr Sutton was desired by Government to show me every consideration, instead of which he slighted me on every possible occasion. I did not say the cases as undor caused his dismissal, but I said among several cases giving cause for dissatisfaction with him, there were three, any of which would have entailed his removal from thedistrict if the most merciful view was taken of them, Un 4th March, 1882, Mr Drumuiond saw scabby sheep of Mr Taylor's at Fernhill (Telford's). Taylor agreed to pay for dipping the sheep, I took charge of Fernhill sheep early in July. I could not do anything with the sheep before shearing, Mr Sutton took no steps against Taylor under the 45th or 28th sections. On 23rd November, 1882, Mr Drummond examined Langdon Bros, sheep and fonnd two ewes with my fire-brand and a long tailed motherless lamb with my wool brand but there was no scab upon any of them. He also found a sheep with Mr Taylor's earmark very scabby. Langdon Bros., certificate was cancelled on account of Taylor's sheep, Sutton did not make Taylor muster his sheep for inspection. Ho (Sutton) had some time before given Mr Tayior a clean certificate. He did not tak:j steps against Taylor either under the 45th or 28th sections, I proved in the KM. Court that I neverhad the two'ewe? in my possession, and further Iliad my sheep shorn and dipped before the 23rd ofNovemler, and there has been no scab seen in the flock from that time to the present date, Yet Mr Sutton took proceedings against me under the 45 tb and 28th sections. The caso under the 45th section wag first heard and I was aquitted, as the Courtdecided there bad been no negligence on my part. The case under the 28th section was. then heard, and although by witnesses I proved that' none of my sheep had mixed with Langdon'a from the day I took charge until the day Inspector J

Drummond examined Langdon's flock, on the 23rd November, I was fined £5 and costs, because Mr Sutton insisted I had not carried out the letter of his instructions by keeping a man on Langdon's boundary all day long. Yet within five minutes of the rising of the Court, in answer to a question from \ Mr James Langdon, he (Sutton) said ' all he would require him to do would be to look after his fences. The, decision of the Court under the 45th Section was virtually an acquittal in the case under 28th Section. I'forwarded to G. S. Cooper, Esq., Under-Secretary, uAr date 7ch March, 1883, inconsistent administration of 'fSpAcfc I against" Inspector Sutton," with a request for inquiry into all circumstances stated as above, Inspector Bailey brought all papers in the case to Tinui, made some inquiries, and I was never i told what the .decision of the Government was. Mataikuna Run (W. W-. \ Johnston, Esq). -On 29th Anuary', 1883, Inspector Sutton was fßMataiknna yards, and examined a sheep , which he pronounced "lousy." The ' manager differed in opinion from him and said it was scab;. r Another gentleman was present and heard what passed,. On 30th'January, 1883, the manager of the Castlepoint run was < present. Mr SiUton ; . appealed #flrim ' with, a view of proving it was not sdabbut he (Castlepoint'iiianager) ag/eeot with Mataikuna manager that it was scab;. Eventually Sutton left an order to clean 1500 sheep (more or less) of which he only saw about 200, It was* months after before tb'eV got the sheep clean. Had, he- (Sutton) .known his work he would haye, ordered an.immediate muster of all sheep on tli9 run, and on adjoining runs, He did neither. The lesult was scab broke out on Castlepoint, lea (Rev J. C. Andrew's), and Mr Bellis' runs. ■'.•' 1 have written proof of this, duly signed by the gentlemen immediately concerned. This was brought under the notice of the. Government. He either proAL himself ignorant of his business, owe had committed a breach of the 12th.section g of the Act, as follows: "]f any In--1 apector shall wilfully make any jalse 1 report, or deliver, any false r cerl|R*te 1 as t to the condition of any sheep ex- , am'med by him, he shall be liable to a . 1 penalty of not less than twenty pounds, 1 nor exceeding one hundred pounds, or" 1 be.imprisoned for any term not exceed ; irig • six calendar months." If 'Mr Sutton wishes me to mention more ! cases lean do so. ■■ -.-■ - ') ;,,;'": • I am, etc., 1 ': Thos. W. Telford.