McKenzie v. Harbor Board.
[to the editor.] Sir,—Your contemporary, in its editor’s not to my letter in that paper, says, “ There was no misrepresentation of fact in the report. Mr Brassey agreed that the rate oases should be adjusted on the basis of the decision given in the Court'of ApPval." I say that there is a gross misrepresentation, inasmuch as their report of the case states that consent was given to a judgment against Mr McKenzie tor first instalment. I again assert that it is not correct, and your contemporary well knows it. Now they assume the position brought about by contortion that the " rate cases ” should be adjusted. Let the Herald keep to the point of Mr McKenzie’s case, and' I think they will be more careful in their remarks.—Yours etc.', W. Brassey.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GSCCG18881113.2.11
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 221, 13 November 1888, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
134McKenzie v. Harbor Board. Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 221, 13 November 1888, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in