Mr. Lawson Tait v Councillor Fulford: Mr. Joseph Rowlands sends us the following copy of a letter addressed by him to Messrs. Smith, Pinsent and Co., in reply to their letter published in our columns yesterday: 27th October, 1890: “Dear Sirs – Your letter of the 25th instant has today been received by me. I think you should have sent it to me before publishing it in the newspapers. I should have thought it must have been apparent to you and your client that my letter to Mr. Tait was not written for publication. If it had been, it would have been written in very different terms. I wrote the letter on the 20th instant, immediately after my interview with you. It did not pretend to convey to Mr. Tait a full account of the interview – only sufficient to guide him in his future conduct. With that letter the matter ended so far as I am concerned. Under these circumstances you will probably consider it to be a matter of little importance whether the letter contained an imperfect representation of the interview or otherwise. At the same time, if you desire it, I have no object to a full account being published: Yours truly, Joseph Rowlands” … On the same subject, Mr. Lawson Tait writes as follows … To the Editor of the Daily Post: “Sir – It is, of course, characteristically considerate of Mr. Fulford to refer me to my legal remedy if I feel aggrieved. Fortunately, I do not now feel much aggrieved, as my friends and advisers have pointed out that Mr. Fulford’s vulgar electioneering abuse constitutes no libel. …”
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive