Mount Auburn Cemetery

317

Treasurer's Quarterly Statement _

The Treasurer submitted his quarterly statement of receipts & expenditures, which was referred to the Committee of Finance. _

Time of regular meetings 3½ P.m.

On motion by Mr Turner

Voted that the regular meetings of the Board be held at half past three o'clock P.m. _

Representation of Lots _

Upon the petitions of the several parties in interest representatives were designated for lots as follows: _

652 Olynthus B. Stone of Boston, son of W^m F. Stone, deceased proprietor of lot numbered 652;

1029 Abby H. Williams, of Worcester, daughter of Lemuel Williams, deceased prop^r of lot numbered 1029;

1557 Edw^d S. Cross of Boston, son of John B. Cross, dec^d prop^r of lot numbered 1557;

2223 Francis W. Welch, of Boston, son of Frances Welch, dec^d prop^r of lot numbered 2223;

2311 Martha Spare, of East Cambridge, widow of Elijah Spare, Jr. dec^d prop^r of lot numbered 2311;

2499 Abel G. Peck of Arlington, trustee under will of John Boles dec^d prop^r of lot numbered 2499;

14

Jan 9 [187]4

E S Cross Esq

Care J E Howe & Co 76 Chauncy St Boston

Dear Sir:

Yours of the 8 inst is at hand. By referring to your order of 1873 for care of Lot &c I find you ordered care - ^$6 - plants ^$4.66. That is, you ordered ^$1.66 more of plants than the usual number, which were placed in your lot ^#1557. When I sent you the order for your signature for care & plants &c for 1874 I did not make any mention of your usual number of plants but of the usual number. The circular stated the price for extra plants. We will place the same number of plants as last year in your lot if you desire as to do so, or carry out your wishes in any order that you may give us. Hoping this will explain the matter in a satisfactory manner

I remain Yours Truly

James W Lovering Supt.

per Childs

22

Jany 15^th [187]4

Edward S. Cross Esq

Dear Sir:

I have your favor of the 14^th inst.

I have looked carefully at the orders sent us by you, and also at the circulars sent, which seem to me quite as explicit as circumstances will allow.

I consider that as your order read we were justified in carrying it out as we did. Had the order been for usual care & plants ^$8, I should not have felt at liberty to alter it to ^$9, but should have put in ^$2.00 worth of plants. We have many lots less or more than 300 ft. for which proprietors are in the habit of ordering "usual plants" at a fixed sum other than ^$3.00 and I think this custom ought to defend our interpretation of the order.

This I think ought to fully explain why there appeared to be no discrepancy to the clerk who entered the order. It is out practice ^^{to write for information} in all cases where there appears the slightest reason to misunderstand an order.

Very respectfully

J W Lovering.