"THE LAND COURT" :"
{"character_count": 1265, "word_count": 223, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9678999781608582], "ccnet_perplexity": [1780.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
We have scarcely time to notice a par. agraph contained in the last Gazette, un- der this head; and shall, therefore, onl J state tlie ssfaots touching the case," and leave a candid nd impartial public to judge of "the motires that could have prompted the article" alluded to.

 Buck sets out by asserting boldly, tifat the statement contained in the Advocate of the 2Ist nit. is ssnotoriously incorrect in point of fact.o Not being member of tie OGcial Frofernuy, we did not feel onrseif authorised to s.apply at the proper source for the facts touching the case. ; and were, therefore, compelled to be satis- fled with such infoSmation, sstoucling the case,' as we could gather from one of Hte OGicers of the Court. lift has so happened that we have been led into error by that officer, as to He DAY oa aehich the Court ad- jonraed, we cheerfully stand corrected.- But, by the way, we have not missed the mark, at last, as far as Buck might suppose, as VIC will endeavor to show

 The Land Court commenced its session on Monday, July II, and adjourned (accor- ding to tie Gazctte's own sho,gng,) on Thursday, 18th ult.---making session of SIXTY-SENEN days, at an expense to the Federal Government, for the per diem pay of it's subordinate officers, alone, oI i.ff