MC'VEAGH V MC'LEAN.

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 574, 25 January 1876, Page 3

MC'VEAGH V MC'LEAN.

Sl», — At you aro lnown to all your subsciibi-is to le ft lover of fair play, may 1 request .you to intcrt the following remarks of mine on tho ■ cube cf McVcagh, v. Jliery McLean, aB tried at the laat District Court, Hamilton, One of Mr McLeans witnesses, Mr Chapman Even, 6tated on oath that ti-tree— or manuka — cut in bundiea w»8 worth only three half- pence .per bundle, and further, when questioned by the Court, stated that he had never lold ti-tree — or manuka — by the bundle. I am not desirous cf having a long newspaper argument with Mr Chapman Ewen, but 1 hope he will gne * straightiorward leply to my letter. 1 enclose an account i'>f Mr Char man Ewen'i, 'with mmmons attached, the account be»nnt; date 26th of Hay, 1871, which account bliomb that nearly five year* ago, wlien ti-trec— or annukn — woo worth about four pouuda Blor- ■ ling (£4 jjer acre). Mr Chapman J£wen made the following charges : —

Now, Tfir, tbls proiea that TVf r Chapman Ewea i did charge for ti-tree per bundle, thougJi ho euoio th»t he never eoltl ti'tiee — or manuka — by the bundle, and ateo that when he charged twopence per bundle ti-tree -or mmuka — was woith about four pounds per afcre (£4), whereas now ti-trcc— or m.muka— is worth fifteen .pounds (£l6) cash per acre. Mr Chapman iiwen stated on oath that the ti-trce is only worth ibree half-pence per bundle, I make no further commont, but ftndose Mr Chapman ■Ivwen'g summons attached, efgnud by William N. fceafancke, ftnd dated 9th August, 1871, »nd 1 leare jour jeatlers and (he patties present in Court to judge the worth of Mr Chapman lLv/eris evidence aa Mr Evtrj McLean's witness. —Yours &c, A SuuscitißEn Cumbridgr, 21 it January, 1876.

-2 days' work ... KO rtakcs If bundles of ti-tree ' To cwtipg same £ H d 0 10 0 0 G 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 £12 0

"David Carnachan Dr. >To Chapman Ewen.