SPORTING CONSULTATIONS.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 460, 29 May 1890, Page 2

SPORTING CONSULTATIONS.

We have very little sympathy with that class of speculations known as “ consultations,” and certainly a very decided objec tion to them when they are the means o annually draining New Zealand of thousands of pounds, as unquestionably is the case. But we have no desire to act unfairly towards the promoters of such consultations : while there are to be found hundreds of men eager to seek “ investments ” of this nature, there will as assuredly be found men willing to afford a means of satisfying the desire, and a sort of mutual arrangement is created, to the satisfaction of promoters and patrons. And if such consultations cannot be suppressed, the next best object is to try and ensure their being worked as honestly as possible.

Some weeks ago a letter was published in the STANDARD referring attention to the peculiar difference between the postal marks and a communication from “ Adam Bede,” of Sydney, the inference being that the promoter of “ consultations ” had acted dishonestly. The explanation offered was that there had been a mistake made in the Post Office Department. However that may be, the person who makes use of the nom de plume of “ Adam Bede ” has directly brought under our notice another complaint which has been made from this district, and enclosing the correspondence bearing on the subject. A perusal of the letters at once convinces us that in this case “ Adam Bede ” has been unjustly blamed by the person concerned, through a mistake on the latter’s own part. He avers that he remitted money for eight ten-shilling tickets, and only having received four he demands a restitution of the £2 which he supposes to be missing. The application is made in terms which prove that the applicant is fully convinced of the genuineness of his claim, a well-known and respected local accountant having indited one letter. We, too, should be inclined to believe that the ticket-holder had made a genuine claim, were it not that “ Adam Bede ” has wisely sent us the original application, which distinctly shows that only four (not eight) tickets were sent for, and only £2 os 6d (not ££', was remitted. In giving publicity* to this we know that it means also an extended advertisement for “Adam Bede,” but having published a letter concerning the first case, it is only fair that equal publicity should be given to a case in which there is proof positive (the man’s own hand-writing) that the person who has complained has himself fallen into a strange error. The case in point certainly shows that people should be careful not to make charges of unfairness, without first ascertaining whether or not the blame lies on their own side.