CORREsrOXDEXT.) Mr E. T. Bmi(h gave a capital lecture at YVeston to nicrht. He adopted an unusual plan. He commenced by cou atituting the hall a court of assize—tho audience the jury, and himself the plain tiff against strong drink. The audience having accepted tho juiisdiction, listened to his lppt'iil, sometimes forcibly carried carried away by a tremendous joko, but again swiycd to condemn the sale of drink. The publicans had accepted the advertised invitation to attend, and a block comprising four or five adjoinit.g beiu'ies was well filled with some of their supj>.>ifers, who s. emed immoderately bent on mischief, and did what they could at first tooppose the plaintiff on behalf of the i defendant publicans. The plaintiff, how ever, had a clear case to prove, and an awful one, and he brought down his argu ment with such force of personal con vie tion and such fund of telling anecdote, that before long the defendant allies seemed to be giving way, and to be turn ing orer th<> publicai s chemselves. When the chargu had been fully brought home, the case distinctly proved, and the plaintiff had sought the jury's veidict by a show of hands, a verdict of guilty was found —the verdict of the whole audience save three. Sentence wis accordingly passed, aud amidst cheers the drink fiend, in anticipa tion, was banished from Waiareka.
ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.
Within reuonttlc hmiti and under rccopnued rule« our column* »re open to eyerybody: but we wi«h it to be dutincth understood that in no way do we identify ounelves with the opimoni of correspondent*, or uit their mcthodi or formt of expression.
WAIAREKA LICENSING ELEC TION. PROHIBITIONISTS v. THE MODERATES.
