The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-12 00:00:00

THURSDAY.

(BEFORE EDWARD JAMES, ESQ., Q.C., ASSESSOR.)
WILLIAMSON V. BEETLESON.—The plaintiff is a
plumber and glazier, and the defendant is a publican in
Bevington•bush, and the action was brought to recover
£7, balance of an account. In February last the plaintiff
entered into a contract to paint the outside of the
defendant's public house for £.5, and the inside for £7.
After completing his contract the defendant directed
him to strip the paper from the walls of some of the
rooms, and other extra work, which amounted altogether
to £l5 15s 6d. He accordingly sent in his bill for
£27 15s 6d, and when he ealled for payment on the sth
of March the defendant said that he would pay it if the
plaintiff receipted the bill. The bill was at once
receipted, but the defendant refused to pay more than
£ll 14s, £9 having been already paid on account, and
leaving still due the balance now claimed. The
defendant paid £1 into court, and contended that the
work had been done in an inferior manner, and that the
extra work had not been to the extent the plaintiff
stated. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for the amount claimed. Mr. Brett appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Blair for defendant.

MAWDSLEY AND ANOTHER V. PEEL.--This was an
action to recover £22 for work done, and goods bar-
gained and sold. Mr. Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Brett for the defendant. From the opening
statement it appeared that the Messrs Mawdsley were
stationers, carrying on business in Castle-street, and suc-
cessors to the Messrs. Gore and Son, publishers of Gore's
Advertiser. Mr. Peel was an attorney, also residing in
Liverpool. The action was to recover certain printing
expenses, incurred by Mr. Peel, as a member of the
committee for conducting the election of Messrs. Turner
and Mackenzie, in 1852. The question in dispute was
whether Mr. Peel was liable for the expenses. Witnesses
were called in order to show that Mr. Peel took an
eminently active part in the proceedings of the election,
on the part of the Conservatives, and that he was a
member of the committee. It appeared that amongst
the sub-committee there was a printing committee, but
Mr. Peel was not a member of it. A nonsuit was
entered before the case was concluded.

HESSELTINE V. DOBSON.—In this action Mr. George
Hesseltine was the plaintiff, and Mr. H. Norman
Dobson, of Tranmere, was the defendant. This was a
claim for a breach of contract. In 1853 the plaintiff, a
gentleman residing at Tranmere, called upon the de-
fendant, a cabinet maker, of Liverpool, and there it was
agreed that the latter should make a cheffionier, and
some other articles of furniture, out of a lump of
mahogany, found by the former. The furniture was to
be solid, and not veneered. The charge was to be £23.
Some of the furniture was, however, made, but it was
found to have been veneered, and not solid mahogany,
The other portion of the furniture, nor the mahogany,
had ever returned. For the defence, it was contended
that no agreement had been made therefore there had
been no breach of contract. The jury returned a verdict
for the defendant.
After disposing of some other cases of no public
interest, the court adjourned.