John Curtis Stonemason Court Case

Article pertaining to John Curtis, born 1829, Long Sutton, who is the 4th great grand uncle of Kian and Caleb Curtis.

IMPORTANT TO STONEMASONS & OTHERS
A case some importance to builders and others came for hearing at"the Spalding County Court, Monday, before Jas. Stephen, Esq., LL.D. John Curtis v. Charles Dickinson Jennings.— This was an action brought to recover £31 0s. 6d., balance of account for work and labour done and material provided. The parties reside at Spalding, plaintiff being a master stonemason, and defendant an ironmonger. A jury had been summoned to try the issues, and consisted of the following gentlemen : Messrs. R. Donington (Spalding), C. Williamson (Moulton Chapel), H. Cooke (Crowland), J. Roberts (Weston Hills), and W. Blood (Crowland). Mr. F. Atter appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Percival for the defendant.—Mr. Atter, in opening the case to the jury, said the action arose oat of a monument to defendant's wife, which had been supplied by the plaintiff, and he thought the only two questions in dispute would prove to be the quantity of granite used, for which had been charged, and the sum of £40 charged for marble figure of Hope which was placed upon the monument. He thought he should have no difficulty in satisfying their minds as to the granite, and as to the figure he should call witnesses to prove that it was properly executed, and that the sum charged for was not excessive. If defendant objected to the amount charged, why did he not object when the total bill for £81 Os. 6d. was originally handed in But he did nothing of the kind ; he paid £50 on account, and raised no objection, and not until his feelings had undergone a change, or he had paid heed to whisperings of friends and the rivals of Curtis, did he dispute the sum which was charged for the statue. Plaintiff, in evidence, deposed that he was a marblemason Spalding, and in June, 1877, defendant and his foreman called upon witness and asked him to go to the Cemetery and look at some monuments there, he wished to erect one for his wife. He examined two— one to Mrs. Peacock, and one to Mr. Nioolls—and witness told him that one would cost £50 and the other £60. He found subsequently, however, that granite had risen in price 25 per cent, since he erected those two monuments. Defendant thought one of the tombs was too high and the other too low, and Mr. Jennings said he should like one between the two in size. As a result of the conversation, witness j drew the sketch produced. Defendant said he did not like urns on the top of the monuments, and witness suggested figure of Hope or Faith, as defendant might think best. Probably a week after that he met Mr. Jennings, and asked him whether he had come to any decision about the figures. He asked witness what one would cost, and he told him he had no idea, as he had ! never made or bought one. Defendant agreed leave it to witness, who undertook to treat him fairly. He (witness) completed the figure of Hope September ; he carved himself, and defendant frequently saw during the progress of the work. After it was completed defendant came and saw the statue several occasions and he raised no objection to it. The figure was made of statuary marble, which was considerably superior to Sicilian marble. He fixed the granite soon as the monument came, and defendant suggested that it would be well to cover the figure with a glass dome. The monument was completed and erected in January, and witness delivered his bill in March. Mr. Jennings paid him £50 on account of the sum due, and raised uo objection whatever at that time. At the end of May or the beginning of June witness went to de and asked him to settle the remainder of the account, as he wanted a little money. Defendant said it was all humbug," and that the letter he had received from Mr. Gibson, marble merchant, of London, was all bosh. The letter from Mr. Gibson was relative to the cost of such monuments. In October he received letter from Mr. Jennings, in which he stated that he had had the figure examined by competent persons, and that they said it was a pity that piece o marble should be so completely spoiled from an artistic point, of tiew by one who evidently understood nothing whatever the anatomy of the subject- The marble of which the figure was made cost him more than £3 ; then there was the carriage from London and cutting out. The figure took him eight weeks to complete :he worked 14 hours day during that time, and did nothing else. It took about four days of ten hours each to polish it. The granite cost him (witness) £28, and he had charged for his profit, including removal from the station to the Cemetery, £G. He considered that reasonable profit.—Cross-examined : When he mentioned the price of Mr. Nicholl's as £60. Mr. Jennings did not say he should pay nothing like that sum. He did not say in conversation with defendant at the onset that a figure Hope would cost £50, and defendant did not reply that he should not pay anything like that sum. This was the first figure he (witness) had cut out. The first bill delivered to defendant witness took himself, and in reply to his request for money, Le did not say he was in such state of health that he did not think he could draw cheque if he tried. He, however, paid £50 on account. When witness went for the balance defendant not only said it was a humbug but an imposition. Mr. Jennings wrote witness second letter the 12th October, upon which he placed the matter in Mr. Calthrop's hand. On Nov. 16th, defendant wrote a letter to Mr. Calthrop, in which he said he had had six competent persons to look the figure, one of whom had offered to cut out figure of Hope for £12, but not like the one in dispute. In that Mr. Jennings suggested that the matter should tie submitted to arbitration, which plaintiff declined to accede to. The figure would stand the weather, at least for a time : had polished it on purpose to protect it from the weather, but he would not say how long would stand it. He dfd not put the figure forward a work of art; it was proportion. The learned counsel could not purchase a figure like that, and of the same size, for £160.— Re-examined : To the best of his knowledge the figure was a good specimen of monumental work.—James Wood, of Little Albany-street. Regent's Park, London, monumental sculptor, said he had had great experience in that business. He erected the statue of Mr. Ingram, at Boston, under Mr. Munro, and also those of Lord Derby, at Preston, and Lord Mayo, and assisted the erection of the Albert Memorial. He worked for most the leading sculptors of the day. He had looked over the figure in Court, and he considered it very nice little statue, and well worth £40. He did not see single error in proportion the drapery, attitude, and emblems were all good. He could not do one himself for less than He should say the statue would take eight nine weeks of ten hours day cutting out. The worth of ordinary mason's labour was Is. Gd. an hour, and that would bring the cost for labour alone to over £30. The cost labour of first-class workman would be 2s. 6d. an hour. He considered a master should have 14 or 15 per cent, profit a work such that.—Cross-examined :He saw nothing the matter with the neck and forehead and drapery the figure.—Mr. Gibson, marble merchant, of Loudon, said his business in and Sicilian marble was very large. He gave Curtis an estimate for a figure similar to that from £50 to £100, according to tbe amount of work put upon it. He could not supply one imported from Icalv for less than £40, and labour was much cheaper in Italy than it was England. He did not think they could get man to do work like that for less than Is. Gd. an hour. For the granite used in the monument, so far as he could tell from a rough guess, he should charge the trale about £35.—This concluding the plaintiff's ca3e, Mr. Percival opened the case of the defendant to the jury, ai.d submitted that the plaiutiff exceeded his ordeis, that the charges were unreasonable and exorbitant, and that the reason why the defendant did not object to the charge when the bill was originally p-esented was because he was iv miserable state of health, and did not take much notice of what the total charges really were. He, too, should call experienced gentleman from London, who would prove to them, after having measured and viewed the monument and figure, that the granite might have been procured for £25, instead of and that the figure was artistic failure, altogether out proportion, and charged for a most excessive rate. Mr. Jennings had paid £50 on account, and £4 into Court, addition to which had paid £8 10s. for the die on the monument, which he had supplied to Curtis himself, and that brought the total cost to £62 10s., a sum which defendant positively told the plaintiff from the first that he would not exceed.—Mr. Jennings, examined Mr. Percival, said that, wanting to have monument erected in memory of his late wife, he went in company with his foreman Stevenson to Mr. Curtis and afterwards, with the latter, went and examined two monuments the Cemetery. When told him the cost of Mr. Nicholls' monument £65), he (witness) told him he should to such price. ultimately adopted monument N si/.e less than Mr. Nh-hnlla', and inasmuch as he objected to urn on the top, Mr. Curtis undertook to put him a figure on instead. He was never told that the cost of figure would be greater than that of an urn and drapery, as upon Mr. Nicholls tomb. During the time plaintiff was cutting out the figure, he (witness) several times -visited his shop, but he never saw complete until he saw it in the Cemetery. When Mr. Curtis brought the bill to him March, he (witness) was very ill, and had had very bad head for several days. He did look over the bill, but he was not condition to examine it carefully or take much notice of it. Being pressed by plaintiff he paid him £50 on account. When he went to witness for the balance, told him he considered the charge for the figure an imposition, and that he should not settle the account unless he deducted something from the charge. his opinion, the figure was not a good one : there was no room for the brains.—By juror : Curtis was to make the figure, and he left the price to him, expecting lie would charge a fair price.—Cross examined : He had paid £54 os. Gd. in all, with the sum said into Court: that would be for*he granite, for landing, £5 for lettering, £1 f,. r figuring, and £22 os. Gd. for the figure. The height and price of his monument were to be between the two which they inspected the Cemetery. He was not ill Jan., when the monument was put up, but he made no complaint about then. He married another wife on the 23rd May.—Frederick Stevenson, foreman to the defendant, spoke to the visit to Mr. Curtis's and the Cemetery : the price of Mrs. Peacock's was put £43, and Mr. Nicholl's £G5. Mr. Jennings said, Dash it, dash it, Curtis ; I shall not spend so much money." He (witness) asked plaintiff if he could not give them one between the two, be said he would sketch the three out on paper. Mr. Jennings most decidedly told the plaintiff he should not go up anything like £65. The witness then confirmed the testimony Mr. Jennings to the conversation relative to the figure. At the time the cheque was given to Mr. Curtis, Mr. Jennings was in such state of health that he (witness) should not think of speaking to him business. direction Mr. Jennings, he (witness) had been up to London and had visited many both monumental and Italian sculptors. He himself should not think of giving £40 for such a figure until he heard the price, he found fault.—Thomas Chapman, stone and marble mason, Spalding, said he had examined the figure, and he considered it defective. anchor was lumpy, the neck thick, and the light hand disproportioned. He could supply a similar figure from eminent sculptures for from £15 to £20.—Mr. J. F. Symes, of Spalding, had seen the figure: he did notcallit anartisticone. Heshould say it was figure in which a man had spent considerable time and labour and some skill, but bad failed from want of technical knowledge.—Henry Roberta, stonemason, of Spalding, had worked upon marble and headstones of all descriptions. He should not call the figure produced artistic piece of statuary. He should certainly not give for such a figure he could get one good as that for £18.—James Hodson, stonemason, of Boston, gave corroborative evidence. He estimated the value of the monument; including the figure, about £60. A figure such that could be produced for £20. —George Hammond, architect and sculptor, of London, said he had had 25 years' experience sculptor, and worked with both marble and wood. He had done the carving for the reredos at Westminster Abbey, the carving of the Duke of Kent's tomb Windsor, and the figures and carving for the pulpit Peterborough Cathedral. He had seen the monument and figure in dispute, measured them, and exclusive of the die purchased by .Mr. Jennings, he put the talue of the granite at £26 55.; that was ample price. As to the statue, there were many defects in it ;it was not proportionate all. The head was too large, and the figure was not at all a work of art. He should estimate it to be worth from £15 to £20. A perfect figure of that size he could supply for from £25 to 30.—Cross examined : A fair remuneration for a- man's labour that work was from Is. 61. to 2s. 6d. hour. —This concluding the defendant's case, Mr. Atter replied, and his Honour summed the issues to the . — Those gentlemen, after absence from court of 30 minutes, returned a verdict for the defendant.
Source: Lincolnshire Chronicle - Friday 06 December 1878