The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-12-21 00:00:00

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.

PILIMY AND CO., v. GIRD.—The defendant is a
Greek merchant in Manchester ; the plaintiff is a com-
mission merchant and manufacturtr at the same place.
The action was brought to recover damages for breach
of contract. It appeared from the evidence that on the
4th of April and the Ist of May the defendant ordered
2,000 pieces of cloth, 1,000 at each date. The only dis-
pute was with regard to the time at which the contracts
should be completed. The plaintiffs asserted that the
contracts were to have been executed according to the
usual custom, viz., within about six weeks. The de-
fendant, on the other hand, stated that the delivery
should have been commenced the week after the date of
the contract, and completed within a month, for exporta-
tion to the East. On the part of the plaintiffs it was
suggested that the difference arose from the fall in the
market, and consequent loss to the defendant on the
contract. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages £7 4s.

ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION OF
CHARACTER.

ROBraTSON v. ASPINWALL—Mr, Edward James

• ;
and Dr. Wheeler, Q.C., for; the Plaintiff; and Mr.Motiak
for the detericlant. Th alicPre Was hfdilglit by
Robertedm working painter, against his late employer,
: Mr. Aspinwall, of the former firm of Monkhouse and
Aspinwall, painters and decorators of Manchester, for
the recovery, of damages for slander or defamation of
'Character, wheretd• the tilaintift shgtainedlos4 employ= meat, &c. .in October; IBdiJ, sonic depofatidfts Were
fOluired to lie Made iri an,.Hans4olae;
Cheliei,, near Loriari;.a,rirta
Wall's brother-in-la*, Pesiderit n . I,oiidoii, ,
interested in those premises, the firm of Monkhouse and.
Aspinwall was engaged to carry out the necessary
4eooratiofis in , question.,, The platritiff was employed
td darrY Mit the deedfatiotis, Ykete 6011tlttded 111
February in the present year. Mr. M'Clelland sent for
a bill of the whole amount owing without mentioning
particulars; and in accordance with that request a bill.
for 4780 was despatched. An ' answer was returned
&tering. £6 t#. , Mr. Konithdugn wits not .inclined to
Ma 'e the reduction of £iod, lint Mr. Aspiti*all *as.
Some unpleasantrieSs occurred ; and, ona subsequent
Oceasion
,Aspinwall asked .1)11. .Rolaehsori.*hether Mr.
MOnkhotise Ittd,desired a specification of the. work dOne
hi Chelsea, Mid beib aniwered it; the ri4gative, he told
0.
the plaintiff " if he does ask you, to do so, do not comply,
Or it will be the worse for you:" Mr; Monkhouse ulti-
mately asked for the specification,. and plaintiff gave' it
acCordingly:, - the beginning pf gay. Mr. Aspinwall
'apOdis to -hafe belieecl. ,tlitit lie Was, the, only
party affected by the Chelsea "job"--proceeded, against
• his partner's wish, to London, to settle the matter ; and
Mr. Monk-house instructed his solicitor to warn 11PCIel- .
11,4 to, P4'i;th.4 moneyt,j Mr; whO, after
;I,..;;l(ltiltti to .61aoh6stiJe fig plon9y; appegrtd
to nave at once proceeded to entry nut his threat dgabist
the plaintiff for supplying Mr. Monkhouse with the
specification, and he trumped up against him a
variety of charges,—amongst them that of inciting
the workmen to strike; and also of inserting lies
in the specification, which had. the effect of having him
summarily dismissed. . Robertson, after his dismissal,
wrote a letter to the firm desiring to know why he had
been • discharged from their employ without the usual
notice.. go answer being received; plaintiff entered an
action the Qininty Coiirt abont £lO, and Was
awarded £5 ;, subsequently;* he epteriad Uri action time
for. the summer assizes fit Lii,.erpooh ag,airist,kdlelland
fur defamation of eharacter, llut,the ease Was Compro,
mised.by i‘Pdlelland paying £lOO to the plaintiff. The
firm of Monkhouse and Aspinwall, ,was dissolved, and
the former Who carried pn the business on his own
account, made the Plaintiff again his foreman, and made
reparation for the loss which Dia Pldintiff had sustained
through the alleged misrepresentation of Aspinwall.---
The evidence having been completed, Mr. Monk put it
to his lordship that the malice had not been proved, and
that communications between partners were permitted.--
His Lordship thought that an important co'isideration,
and called upon Mr. James, who admitted that com-
munications between partner':; with respect to their
servants was dlldwed, but 60iitHdpd. din the etidenc.e
clearly proved LdrdifliP reriirtried that if
there s rig other didenne than that 131..dugl'A fe'rv!;ard;
he should not let tbe,case ge to
.the jury.7:-Mr: Morik
'house was re-called; and the learned judge,,.after stating •
that coniniuniedtioris between tria,sce.r§' is privileged unless
indliee be eipi:essly.PrOied, iristrUcted the jury to bring
a ferdiet df tfilWard James gave notice
that he should proceed with the ease in dde df the
higher courts. •