Page 2 Advertisements Column 4

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2201, 23 January 1886, Page 2

SALE OF MESSRS DOWNES & HENDERSON'S PLANT AT MAURICEVILLE. J A. Mr F. H. Wood's sale of Contraocor's plant, horses, and material, on account of Messrs Downes and Henderson, at Mauriceville, was held on Tuesday last, the 21st iuat. This sale which, owins; to well-studied advertising and judicioUi handling had rceated a large amount of anticipation, was attended with the most unqualified success throughout, and great credit is due to both auctioneers and fcho vendors for tho manner in which ono of the largest Bales held in thi3 district was carried through. No hitch or confusion manifested itself during the sale, weighing or delivery of the 730 parcels that were placed before the buyers. The number of persons present during the day could nut have been less than 400, and it was fully evident from the commencement of the sale that it was strictly business upon which they wero bent, each lot as put up being eagerly contested, and the bidding for soino of tho special lines being most animated. The price* realized were what wo "believe ,i» technically termed satisfactory alike to. purchaser and vendor, aiid they ahtfuld have a most gratifying and, roaslffrig' effect after'the many lugubrious report* we havo latterly met with on the stat* of finances and business generally,' It would be almost impossible, and of lio guide or avail to publish a complete lilt of figures obtained for the thousand and one linos disposed of. The auctioneori, however, quotes as follows for some of the principal items., Horses heavy, draughts, £22 to £2B; light £ls to £18; hacks £8 to £l2: £2O to £25; drays £lO to £ls; lianiein, £4 to £6los per set; steel rails £G per ton; barbed wire (English) £34 per ton ; black wire, £ls 10s per ton; stable £8 10«';' blocks with bellows, £3 to £5; anvila, £1 15s to £2; Price's timber jacks, according to power, £3 as to £5, (advt.) THE BUILDERS'GRIEVANCE ' T. WRIGLEY CHALLENGES MR FANNIN. To THE EDITOI. Sir—l villi to remind Mr Fannin that if he would adhero to the text in his reply to my letters, it would be more satisfactory both to myself and all ooncerned. Ho itates ho wai not employed by nor had anything to do with it. mi> plans were not got out by Mr Fannin, but, as in Mr Meredith's case, when the tenders were opened and iound to be more than it was intended to expend, reduction had to be made, and there being only £1 differenco botwoen the two lowest, they both claimed the right of reduction according to tho different iteniß given. The lowost tenderer, Williams & Barker, 1 naturally (on this occasion) said ">V" Mr Olcghorn, having just completed over £IOOO worth of work on the tame premises, said "Yes;" and not being able to agree on the subject, Mr Fannin was called in as arbitrator, when his decision was; " The lowost tenderer only has the right to make the necessary reductions." I havo Mr Oleghorn's authority to state tho above. Throughout the whole of this correspondence Mr Fannin has tried to evado the point at issue, and introduced every paltry quibble, and sometimes personalities, to avoid giving direct answers to my statements. In conclusion, I challenge Mr Fannin to put this case to: arbitration, allowing competent mon of experience in contracting to hear both siaes of the question, and if the deojaion is given against us, viz., that wowtv# received justice, I will givo £5 to.''the Masterton Hospital and pay coats of arbitration, provided Mr Fannin does the samo if he is found to be in the wrong. 'I have, etc,, Thos. Wright. . [advt.] BUILDERS' GRIEVANCE, MR CLEGHORN IN REPLY. ANOTHER CHALLENGE TO MR FANNIN. Sir, —1 have carefully perused the different sides of the Builders' Grievance, and I must say that Mr Fannin ha* carefully avoided giving any direct reply to any of the different • charges brought against him. As regards myself,'l have carefully avoided rushing into print on this occasion, although Mr Fannin has treated mo on several occasions eveq worse—far worse—than the parties principally.concerned in the above grievance; but I think it my duty, after readingrfgr Fannin's reply to the statement corn®!-" ing myself in Mr Wrigley'a letter of yosterdav, whore Mr Fannin gives me tho. lie direct,'to "come forward and openly challenge; Mr Fannin to have both statements thoroughly, investigated before! unbiased opinions. If 1 aip. in the habift. of giving vent to aucli Mound Oook gaol to, ba my! ,abode, • and not it