THE LATE CASE.—CARSTAIES v. PICTON.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 113, 18 April 1868, Page 4

THE LATE CASE.—CARSTAIES v. PICTON.

To the Editor of the Marlborough Express. Sw, —I should be very unwilling to intrude private or personal questions on your time and space, but as my reputation as a tradesman is likely to be injured by the report of the case, “Carstairs v. Picton,” published in your issue of Saturday last, I shall esteem it as a favour if you will permit me to ofter a few remarks in defence of my own character, which has been indirectly assailed. First, I would beg to correct a mistake in your report. In the examination of plaintiff by Mr, Moffitt, you report—“ The usual charge for an ordinary coffin covered with black for the Government was £2 55.; this should read, “coloured with black " —that is, distemper color. It may be urged that the public discussion of the melancholy items of a funeral are heartfelt to the friends of the deceased, but in this case I feel that I need not entertain any such scruples, as I have in my possession a memorandum of a bet or wager for £5, made at the bar of a publichouse, written and signed by Mr. Picton, and endorsed by two witnesses, on one of the items charged in my bill for Mrs. Picton’s funeral. As he did not succeed in doing me out of my just claims by the trickery of the race-course, he has, however, gained his point by the more circuitous, and not less expensive, process of the Magistrate’s Court; and by procuring the evidence of persons, whose <fnode of conducting funerals he so fully condemned, as to declare to me that he would not allow them to bury a dog for him. lin no way desire to endorse Mr. Picton’s opinion, but I am bound to say that I have good reason to believe that both the witnesses have but a very superficial knowledge of the undertaking trade. Did Mr. Gorrie gain his fifteen years experience on the Collingwood diggings 1 I should think he saw more cradles than coffins there, and knew more about bottoming a claim than conducting a funeral; yet both these witnesses, upon oath, give evidence on the value of workmanship and materials, which they publicly acknowledge they have never seen. Again Mr. Gorrie states that “The shroud- would take two yards of cloth.” Does deponent know what a shroud is ? Two yards of flannel will scarcely make an ordinary sized adult an under vest! How then will Mr. Gorrie make a garment to cover the body like a dressing gown, from the shoulders to the feet, and with long sleeves, out of two yards of cloth ? —query, what cloth ? 1 am afraid of intruding too far on your kindness, or I could prove that the decision of the Court has been made on false premises, and that I have been grossly wronged out of the just return for the outlay of my capital, and a fair remuneration for my skill and labour. Yours, &c., Blenheim, April 16, 1868. J. Carstaxes.