BEIDGES V. SHELDOM. > 2& �mony of the orator and Smith is that the figures were not made in the presence of the Sheldons, and that they were not «iamined and studied by either. So, while there was ample e-ddence to show that the $20,000 -was put on to the priees of the stone, if that had been agreed to be done, there is far less evidence to show it wao then agreed to be done. The exceptions to the disallowance of this item are sustained. �4. As to item for machine repairs — $1,071.93. These repairs were made by the defendants to machinery furnished and operated by the orator to perform work that he was to perform. The question made, as stated by the master, is whether, by the terms of the contract between the orator and the defendants, he or they were to make such repairs. There is not enough reported, or that appears, to vary the provis- ions of the contract in regard to them. The defendants were to furnish the necessary machinery and machine shops, ex- cept said blast machines and rubbers, and also kcep the same in repair. If this were all, the plain meaning would be that they were to keep the same machines they furnished in re- pair. But the contract proceeds further in the same connec- tion, and construes itself by declaring the meaning to be that the orator should pay only for certain specified things, not in- cluding repairs. Taken altogether, the contract seems to require the defendants to make these repairs. The orator's exceptions to the pro forma allowance of this item are sus- tained, and the item is disallowed. �5. As to item upon the Almaretta loss — $2,320.20. Some of the stone were shipped for their destination on the schooner Almaretta. The orator undertook to get them insured, but failed to perfect any valid insurance. The vessel and cargo, including the stone, were lost. The question is as to which of these parties should bear the loss of the stone. By the provisions of the contract the defendants were to be the legal owners of all the stone untii they should become the property of the govemment under the contract with the government. But, according to the spirit of the whole contract, they were owners for their own security, merely, and beyond that held ��� �
