A STUDMASTER’S TOMBSTONE.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18073, 11 January 1921, Page 8

A STUDMASTER’S TOMBSTONE.

WIDOW'S CHOICE IN ORNAMENT. HORSE RATHER THAN DOVE. Early this year, so it was alleged, agreement was made between a traveller for H. B. Corben and Sons, of Clifton Hill, Victoria, with Mrs Isabel May Brown, licensee of the Caledonia! Hotel, Warrnambool, whereby the firm was to erect a tombstone over the grave of her late husband, Alexander Brown, in the local cemetery, for £52. Mrs Brown, according to the traveller, approved of a sample design, but said she did not like a dove on top of a scroll that was included in it. She explained that the late Mr Brown, having been studmaster for Sol. Green, was much connected with racing, and she wished for something more appropriate than a dove on his tomb, such as a horse. That might be put on top of a scroll, she thought. The traveller said he would consult the firm’s sculptor about it, and it. would be beet to leave to the sculptor where the horse should be put. Mrs Brown, he said, agreed to that, adding that the late Mr Brown had a great number of frit nds who would probably come for miles io see tile tombstone, Corbens performed their contract, and made a representation of a horse in a panel, below a scroll on the tombstone, which they set up. But Mrs Brown did not like it at all. When she saw the traveller again she said, “The job is rotten. I would not put that stone over a dog of mine.” It transpired that another tombstone maker had undertaken to do something that she thought would suit better, wffierein a bronze horse was to appear on top of a scroll, and a stirrup with a wliip going through it and a spur, were to figure on the memorial. Corbens sued the lady in the Warrnambool County Court for recover}’ of £52 for the work they have done, or, alternatively, for breach of agreement for £99 damages against them for breaking into and entering on her grave allotment, and erecting a fence and tombstone there. She averred that she had made no contract with the firm, had committed no breach of contract, that any order given was subject to subsequent confirmation by defendant, and the aL leged order was never confirmed. The suit was tried before Judge Woinarski and a jury, with the result that judgment was entered for Corbens for £3O, and they were also given judgment on the counterclaim, with costs. Application was imade by Mrs Brown for a new trial, on the grounds that the Judge had misdirected the jury, and that on the findings of the jury the defendant was entitled to judgment, and that the jury verdict w’as against the evidence. A new trial being refused by Judge Woinarski, she appealed to the Supreme Court, and, by consent, the parties agreed that the Full Court should adjudicate on the case. On December 10, states the Melbourne Age, the Chief Justice and Justices Cussen and M'Arthur sustained the appeal, and directed that Corbens should, within one month, remove, or cause to be removed, the stone, railings, etc., erected over the grave of the appellant’s late husband, leaving the grave and land in good order, and pay her £2O costs of the appeal.