MAGISTERIAL

Timaru Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 3625, 22 August 1901, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL

TIMARU—WEDNESDAY, AUG. 21st." (Before Mr C. A. Wray, S.M.) ; CIVIL CASES. Smithson v. C. T. Scorringe (Christchurch), claim £2 10s; Mr Raymond for plaintiff. . Judgment was given by default, with costs. Mrs Jones v. Allan, claim £l2 10s. Mr Raymlond for plaintiff, -Vir Bo II est on for defendant. Mr Raymond said that the evidence for

defendant had been taken in Ashburton. Plaintiff was a monumental mason in Timaru, and some time ago supplied a headstone to defendant. The question now raised was whether the stone supplied was the one agreed upon. The objections made were, first, that the stone was not of the size ordered. Defendant and several of his family gave evidence that the stone was to be 4ft high, with a cross at the top instead of ivy leaves, the price to be £l2 10s; but defendant

had failed to note that there was a contract in writing entered into between the parties. The contract was that Allan should take the marble headstone 3321, to be fixed in Ashburton, the price, including inscription, to be £l2 10s. Mrs Jones produced her pattern book, and Allan fixed on( No. 3321. At the top of the pattern book ivy leaves were shown, but it was agreed that a cross should be put on the top. Defendant suggested in his evidence that the cross was to be an independent piece, but that could not have been understood, as it would have ■cost £5 more. Plaintiff imported a stone from Italy, put on the inscription ordered, and in the early part of the year wrote to defendant. that it was ready. Defendant replied that he was not ready for it. but some time after it was sent on to Mr Groves, of Ashburton. Defendant saw the stone in his yard, and raised objection to the size of the stone, the inscription, and the removal of the ivy leaves. Plaintiff put on the new inscription as far as possible, and put on ivy leaves. Plaintiff gave evidence in accordance with counsel's statement.

To Mr Rolleston : Was positive that the cross was not to be an'upright one. Did not say that the cross would be 4ft high. Told defendant that the stone would hold three; short inscriptions. • ■ .-'■ To Mr Raymond: A cross as high; as defendant claimed' would cost £3O or £35.

James Allan, defendant, gave evidence that plaintiff showed him some plans of headstones, but he -could not understand them. Told her he wanted an upright cross. Plaintiff-took. an inscription, but was told noti to - put anything on till another -was sent. -Saw the stone in Groveß' yard, but refused to take delivery. Wrote to plaintiff to that effect, and asked that a stone be provided in ' accordance with the agreement. The cross was broken when Groves took possession of it. The stone was returned to Timaru, and, some extra words put on. The stone was only 23in high. Mr Raymond cross-examined.

His Worship said it -was a question whether the chip off the cross should be allowed, fori It appeared to him {hat defendant had' expected a much- larger monument for his' money than, he had received. Defendant sEould have advised the plaintiff earlier of the proposed alteration in.the inscription.'.. Plaintiff appeared to have done everything .she possibly could' to satisfy defendant. ' The parties: might be able to agree to some /arrangement.'/. Mr Raymond said that plaintiff was willing to make an-offer. After,. a. short 'adjournment to. attempt a settlement, -His' Worship further adjourned i the case till to-day.