Honeywood Settlement

by Creswell, H. B.

I have just received from the builder the enclosed account of his claim against my client in respect of defective facing bricks supplied by you, and shall be glad to receive your cheque drawn in favour of Sir Leslie Brash for the sum of £118 4s. 4d. forthwith, as the matter is of long standing and the account is now being closed.

  Yours faithfully,

  Appearances are that Spinlove took an opportunity to consult some longer head than his own on the drafting of this letter perhaps that of Mr. Tinge, the quantity surveyor. The words he commonly wastes are conspicuously absent, and some good influence has also restrained him from his characteristic digressions in self-justification.

  HOOCHKOFT TO SPINLOVE

  Dear Sir, 13.7.26.

  We do not understand why Mr. Grigblay’s account with Sir Leslie Brash has been sent to us, and return it herewith as we can only suppose your suggestion of a cheque in settlement is intended as a joke. The matter is ended so far as we are concerned.

  Yours faithfully,

  SPINLOVE TO HOOCHKOFT

  Dear Sirs, 16.7.26.

  I have to point out that the matter of the defective facing bricks supplied by you is by no means ended, and is very far from being a joke so far as you are concerned.

  The facts are that some of the soft, bright-red under-burnt facings included by you in the early consignments, and built into the walls, almost immediately began to decay and, to the number of eighty-seven, had to be cut out and replaced.

  As you neglected to pick out the under-burnt bricks from early consignments totalling 7,000, this work had to be done on the site by the builder.

  The under-burnt throw-outs were unusable and had to be replaced by sound bricks to the number of 1,050.

  The charge you made for picking is not allowable as the bright-red under-burnt bricks were unsuitable for facings.

  Mr. Grigblay’s charge is the sum he paid you for picking, together with the cost of picking over in your default. The other charges are based on time and materials, and the amount paid you for defective bricks that could not be used.

  The bricks offered by you, ordered by me and invoiced, are “facings”; you were under warranty to supply facings, and Sir Leslie Brash claims from you £118 to reimburse him for losses directly due to your breach of warranty. I return the account and have to repeat my request for cheque in settlement forthwith.

  Yours faithfully,

  It is difficult to believe that Spinlove settled the draft of this letter. The probability is that some architect friend of wide experience, or a lawyer, gave him guidance. It is to his credit that he realized he was on delicate ground, for it is most difficult in positions such as this to be lucid, and to keep to the essential facts, and to avoid prejudicing the position, or actually making It untenable, by accidental admissions or inconsistencies.

  SPINLOVE TO BRASH

  Dear Sir Leslie Brash, 16.7.26.

  Thank you for cheque. I enclose formal receipt. I am glad you have sent Mr. Grigblay a cheque as he had grounds for feeling aggrieved at the delay.

  I am obliged for your reply to my letter, but I still do not completely understand what it is that you expect of me. You seem to express dissatisfaction with my conduct of the business of settling Grigblay’s account. I can only assure you that I will spare no pains to see that no improper charge is included.

  Yours sincerely,

  HOOCHKOFT TO SPINLOVE

  Mr. Spinlove, 17.7.26.

  We now understand your new move to make us refund in order to cover your own liability to your client by now saying bright-reds were defective; but unfortunately you told us nothing of this at the time, but waited till your other trick failed, knowing that nothing was wrong with the bricks; and if you did have a few cut out they were sound ones and only done to bolster up a false claim against us by holding out they were defective when they were not; but very likely none were cut out at all, and this is just a dirty job to put responsibility on to us and get a refund because your other trick of saying you never ordered picked has gone wrong.

  We return you Grigblay’s account and suggest try again as this has not come off and something better is needed to humbug us.

  Your most obliged humble servants,

  Such contemptible devices as Hoochkoft, by return of post, here ascribes to Spinlove, could scarcely enter their heads if they did not themselves practice them. Its abusive diction and general likeness to the barking of a dog is not uncommon in some fields of business correspondence. Hoochkoft for the first time honours Spinlove by meeting him as man to man, and Spinlove should take heart.

  SPINLOVE TO HOOCHKOFT

  Gentlemen, 19.7.26.

  I do not know whether you intend your letter as a final disclaimer, but as there is the testimony of the builder, foreman, bricklayers and others to support me, perhaps you will prefer to reconsider your position before I advise Sir Leslie Brash to take action to enforce his claim; in which case I do not think such letters as that you last sent me will help you. I enclose the account and await your reply.

  I am, Gentlemen

  Your humble servant,

  This diplomatic answer was certainly not drafted by Spinlove. It is clear he had guidance.

  HOOCHKOFT REMEMBERS HIMSELF

  HOOCHKOFT TO SPINLOVE

  Dear Sir, 22.7.26.

  Your favour of the 19th inst. with enclosure and previous correspondence has been laid before our chairman and managing director, Mr. Eli Hoochkoft, who proposes to wait on you at any time convenient to your good self for the purpose of amicably settling the matter to your satisfaction in a personal interview.

  We may say that we were naturally taken aback at the contents of your previous letters, as the matters referred to were quite new to us and the official who dealt with the correspondence was under a misapprehension. Mr. Hoochkoft tenders you his apologies for same, although our suggested explanations were not intended in any way as a criticism of your good self.

  We are, dear Sir,

  Yours faithfully,

  Delicacy of touch is not a strong point with Hoochkoft; in fact, one of the few disadvantages of having a hide like a rhinoceros is that you assume everyone to be sheathed with an insensibility equal to your own. Hoochkoft are quite unaware that their ingratiating affability presents the picture of deceits spurred by funk. The trick by which, after one bluff has failed, they approach the subject de novo from a new angle, by a pretence of referring it to higher authority, is a very old one.

  SPINLOVE TO HOOCHKOFT

  Gentlemen, 28.7.26.

  I confirm arrangement by telephone that Mr. Hoochkoft will call to see me here at noon on Wednesday.

  I am, yours faithfully,

  (HOLOGRAPH) MR. ELI HOOCHKOFT TO SPINLOVE

  Dear Mr. Spinlove, 5.8.26.

  As promised I have carefully considered the position of my firm in the light of our friendly talk and now respond to your kind offer to entertain a payment in settlement by enclosing Treasury notes to, the value of £25 in the belief that this will meet your favourable ideas. Will you kindly initial for receipt of this letter to the bearer who has been instructed to deliver it into your hands?

  I trust that in the future I may be honoured by your esteemed favours, when I will make it a personal pleasure to see you receive complete satisfaction in any orders you may entrust to us and that no irregularity as that complained of occurs.

  Believe me, dear Mr. Spinlove,

  Yours truly,

  Eli is trying to bribe Spinlove; a bribe being the giving to, and acceptance by, an agent of any gift or consideration, as an inducement to the agent to do, or forbear from doing, any act in relation to his principal’s affairs. Although it is a thing the slightest hint of which all right-minded men shrink from as intolerable to their self-respect, and a violation of the rudiments of personal honour, yet bribery, in one form and another, is a common usage for greasing the wheels of business, and all architects sooner or later become aware of its detestable implications. Many men whose field
s of activity involve them in the practice, excuse it by the cynical sophistry that all human actions are swayed by a coveted reward, and that in essence there is no difference between actions framed in ambition for social and political advancement or the favour of powerful men, and those where the goal is more directly money—just as it has been argued that all motives are at bottom or that there is no such thing as a bald man because it is impossible to say at what point, when single hairs are plucked from the head, it becomes bald.

  We lately saw Brash holding out inducements to Spinlove to betray his trust which, though morally bribery, would scarcely have made him guilty at law, but this attempt by Hoochkoft is a particularly flagrant example of the crime-for crime it is. To take or give a bribe is an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding £500, with or without imprisonment not exceeding two years. If Eli were brought before me, I should award him a fine of one hundred pounds with nine months in the second division for undisturbed meditations on bricks. He is, however, unlikely to be brought before anyone; for such nefarious understandings as he here seeks to establish are reached by each party advancing towards the proposal by hints and innuendoes to which either can readily give an innocent meaning if his overture wins no response, and it is thus usual for the illicit agreement to be reached tacitly and by implication, without anything being said that would entitle either party to affirm that a bribe had been offered or asked by the other.

  Thus we find Hoochkoft sending money to Brash’s agent in fulfillment of an apparently honest agreement for settlement of Brash’s claim, he could—although it is a question whether any jury would agree-hold out that he had no intention of bribing. He also, it will be noticed, makes it safe for Spinlove to pocket the money and decide, for any. reason he chooses to give, that Brash’s claim is untenable. There is the evidence of no third person, and there is no record, such as a cheque or bank notes would set up, that the money has changed hands. There is nothing but Hoochkoft’s oath that he sent Spinlove the money against Spinlove’s that he never received it, and vice versa, to establish the fact; and as both would be equally guilty and the arrangement Meets the desires of each, there would be no likely need for either of them to thus add perjury to their conspiracy to plunder Brash.

  (REGISTERED POST) SPINLOVE TO MR. ELI HOOCHKOFT

  Sir, 7.8.26.

  I am not prepared to recommend Sir Leslie Brash to accept any such disproportionate sum as the £25 you sent me in settlement of his claim against you.

  As your offer adequate to your professions at our interview, I have to say that the sum I am prepared to recommend my client to accept in full settlement is the amount paid to you in error by Mr. Grigblay for picking out defective bricks, namely £92; and I shall be glad to receive, not cash, but your cheque for this amount drawn in favour of Mr. Grigblay, on receipt of which I will return your Treasury notes value £25. In the event of your not accepting this offer the matter will go out of my hands.

  I am, Sir,

  Yours faithfully,

  The reason Spinlove did not send back Eli’s Treasury notes by the messenger who brought them is, probably, that he could not at the moment make, up his mind how to handle the matter. It is just as well he did not so return them, for it would have been a gesture of wiping out the interchange, and left things as though Hoochkoft had never offered the affront. As it is, Hoochkoft is likely to have an uneasy feeling as to what may have been happening in the enemy camp in the three days’ interval between his sending the notes and Spinlove’s letter, and this uneasiness will be increased by Spinlove’s action in holding the notes for return, instead of putting them to Hoochkoft’s credit in his account with Brash. Spinlove clearly has someone guiding him in this ticklish business, and perhaps the awkwardness of dealing with the cash, and a wish to enforce decorum on Hoochkoft and hold the whip hand over him, decided his action.

  It still remains unexplained why such a practised rogue as Hoochkoft should have concluded that Spinlove was open to bribery. It is clear that he was misled by Spinlove at their interview; and it is also clear that Spinlove had no intention of so misleading him. We may suppose, therefore, that it never entered Spinlove’s head that Hoochkoft’s aim was to find out whether he Was corruptible and, if so, his price; and thus Spinlove neither encouraged Hoochkofit to show his hand nor, in his complete unconsciousness, warned him by word or look that his task was hopeless. It is easy, on this supposition, to understand that Hoochkoft’s offer of a money payment to Spinlove as “a sum in friendly settlement”—or however else he disguised his true meaning—was accepted in all good faith by Spinlove as a proposal for settlement to Brash, while Hoochkoft supposed Spinlove was veiling his acceptance in the same way that he himself was veiling the proposal. The extreme innocence of Spinlove, in fact, gave Hoochkoft, who is clearly a lumbering, obtuse fellow, the idea of excessive subtlety and wariness.

  It is to be noted that no sum was named at the interview. The position was threshed out, and Hoochkoft went off to consider the sum he would offer in settlement.

  HOOCHKOFT TO SPINLOVE

  Dear Sir, 10.8.26.

  With reference to Mr. Hoochkoft’s interview with you on 4th August, we now enclose cheque drawn in favour of Mr. Grigblay for the sum of £92 as refund of disputed charge for picked facings, which you state was paid in error. The acceptance of this sum to be understood to be in full settlement of Sir Leslie Brash’s claim against us as per enclosed account and which is in dispute.

  Yours faithfully,

  And so Spinlove has won! He has made a fight in which his native tenacity and his vanity have probably served him better than his devotion to his client’s interests.

  There is no doubt that Hoochkoft’s false step in attempting to bribe Spinlove has precipitated his decision to pay up and so avoid any chance of litigation and exposure. It is to be noticed that Hoochkoft ignores Spinlove’s letter and sends the cheque as though in fulfillment of an understanding come to at Hoochkoft’s interview with Spinlove. His object in this is to cover his tracks, so far as may be, and avoid any official record of the illicit project.

  A FALSE STEP

  SPINLOVE TO BRASH

  Dear Sir Leslie Brash, 11.8.26.

  I think you will like to know that after considerable trouble I have at last succeeded in securing refund of ninety-two pounds which was overpaid to the manufacturer of the facing bricks by mistake.

  With kind regards,

  Yours sincerely,

  Spinlove’s guardian angel seems to be resting after the heavy task of seeing him safely through his struggle with Hoochkoft; for though we have had many examples of Spinlove’s impetuous folly, he has never surpassed the adroit idiocy of this letter.

  It is obviously desirable to avoid pushing poor old Brash’s dislocated nose down into the extras account, yet Spinlove here goes out of his way to do so. Not only is any letter at all quite unnecessary, but Spinlove entirely discredits himself by vaunting his achievement. His childish impulse was evidently to court Brash’s esteem; but to do this it was important for him to put that strange face on his own perfections which Shakespeare tells us is the witness of excellency. His noisy acclaim of his own scanty merit, which he represents in the worst possible light, can only make his client sick with distrust. If Spinlove had merely allowed the fact to emerge without any exhibition of complacency, his client would have been favourably impressed with his capacity and vigilance, but what is Brash to think of an agent who writes-with kind regards—applauding himself for making a merchant give back money that ought never to have been paid; and who breaks the news with “I think you will like to know . . .” as though such glad tidings were beyond all imagining?

  The explanation no doubt is that Spinlove, in the exhilarating moment of victory, is moved to demolish the adverse criticism of Brash’s last letters, and writes, as he so often does, without pausing to consider what effect he will produce.

  BRASH TO SPINLOVE

  Dear Mr Spinlove, 13.8.26.

&
nbsp; I was, of course, gratified to receive the intimation communicated by your missive, but you must permit me to convey the comment that the considerable difficulty you experienced in exacting repayment of an erroneous disbursement does not favourably impress me with the expeditious conclusion of negotiations for settlement. May the interrogation be permitted 1, why the excess amount was paid to these grasping manufacturers; 2, how many more of these irregular disbursements have been allowed; and 3, when—may I ask again—shall I eventually receive the detailed Statement of Account so often promised? This account, it is now obviously clear, will have to be carefully audited by qualified accountants.

  My lengthy negotiations with the Riddoppo Company anent the failure of the paint are now approaching termination, and I shall shortly have further communications to make.

  Yours sincerely,

  Brash’s auditing accountants will not be able to deal with Grigblay’s statement of account, and are likely to raise many questions than they will understand the answers to, so that the resulting turmoil will bring Brash more suffering than consolation. The proposal itself is, however, futile: Grigblay would refuse to allow interferences, and Spinlove and Tinge (the quantity surveyor) would support Grigblay; for under the contact Brash has agreed that the architect shall decide all technical matters and questions of fact, and that the quantity surveyor shall measure and value all variations, so that Brash’s auditors would have no standing.

  SPINLOVE TO BRASH

  Dear Sir Leslie Brash, 14.8.26.