Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-08-29 00:00:00

.tently the
'er for the beer, but the bills of
ale out in the names of the sub-eontrac-

supposed that any sale would be effected unless the ac-
ceptances were not met at maturity. But on t'.•ie 19th
of May, before the bill held by Lizardi & Co. had ar-
rived at maturity, the defendants sold the cotton at s'd-
The plaintiffs immediately communicated with the de-
fendants, instructing them to annul the contract of sale,
as they (the defendants) had no authority to dispose of
the cotton, and as they had accepted less than the
market price of the day for it. The defendants declined
to annul the contract, as it was contrary to the custom-
of the trade ; and they further alleged that they under-
stood they had authority to sell if they thought fit.

and Pickles, who afterwards became bank-

The plaintiffs proved on their estate, but this,
A, was at the request of the defendant, and on
;rstanding that this proceeding should not pre-
heir claim. The present action was brought to
the value of the ale supplied to the sub-contrac-
a. whom, it was alleged. the defendant was

fence was that the beer was ordered by Childs
[es, that the defendant never ordered the beer,
he was not applied to for payment until after
uptcy of Childs and Pickles. Verdict for the
-damages, £26.

Witnesses were being examined on the part of tha
plaintiffs, when the court adjourned, at five o'clock, until
ten o'clock this morning.

COUNTY MAGISTRATES.—SATURDAY.
[Before W. IL LAIRD and THOS. BROCKLEBANK, Esgrs.l
CHARGE OF OBTAINING MONEY UNDER . FALSE
PRETENCES —Mary Dunnigan complained that Mar-
gaiet Grimes had gone before the West Derby board of
guardians and obtained 2s. worth ofprovisions, and on two
several occasions 3s. of weekly allowance, on the represen-
tation that she had been sent by the complainant, retain-
ing the money for her own use. In the second instance
the prisoner, on being challenged with the offence, said sha
gave up the 3s. The prisoner, who had obtained com-
plainant's authority to receive the money, was discharged

KILSHAW V. HILL.
ppeared for the plaintiff, who is a timber
id has a sawmill at Bootle, and Mr.
the defendint, who is a brickmaker, at

)rought to recover the amount of a
for £54 15s. 6d. It appeared that in

ion was

1858, the defendant was indebted to the
Ln the sum of £142 1.55. Gd. for timber and
against which payments had been made at
iraes to the extent of £BB is., leaving a balance
t of £54 14s. 6d., for which the defendant

with an admonition

EMPTYING AN Asurrr, AND DEPOSITING THE DOS'
TENTS ON THE HIGHWAY.—WiIIiam Miller, a night-
man, was charged, at the instance of Mr. Monkhouse,
the surveyor to the Toxteth Board 'of Health, with hav-
ing deposited the contents of two ashpits on the high-
way, at Church-lane, St. Michael's Hamlet. The in-
formation was laid under the Highway Act, and the
penalty sought to be recovered was 40s. Miller was
ordered to pay a fine of Is., and 3s. 6d. costs.
GARDEN ROBBERY.—Three well dressed young boys,
named William Boyle, William Taylor, and George
Taylor, were charged with stealing fruit from a garden.
at Green-bank on Sunday afternoon. They were
ordered to be fined in the sum of ls. each for tthetrespass, and ss. 6d. costs each. The money was paid,
and they were dismissed with a caution.
STEALING FROM A JOINER'S SHOP.—Peter Kelly, an
elderly man, was charged with stealing a joiner's
shifting plough-plane, belonging to John Beattie, at
Knotty-ash, ou Monday last. The prisoner was traced
to have stolen the plane, and pledged it at the pawn-
shop of Smith and Hammond, Soho-street, on the same
afternoon. The prisoner, who denied the theft, 105
clearly identified as the party who pledged the article
for 6s. He was likewise recog,nised as one who had
been convicted in March, 1858, of the theft of au
umbrella. lie was committed for trial at the sessions.

s atter date.
purchased a second lot of timber,
3d. This timber was sawn as required
and, though it was not actually
put aside in the plaintiff's yard as pro-
to the defendant. On the 26th of
plaintiff received a letter from the de-
effect that he would probably not be able
11 for £54 14s. 6d. The plaintiff then
make himself safe in this business, and
rranged that the defendant should hand
him a horse in part payment of the
debt, the price agreed upon being £4O. When the
bill became due, the defendant tendered £l4 14s. 6d. in
settlement of his acceptance, but the plaintiff declined to
receive that amount as the balance owing for the bill of

Rfendant

over to

exchange, alleging that the value of the had been
piaced to the credit of the account for the second lot of

ber, au

•ainst the bill of exchange.
plaintiff for £54 14s. 6d.
WILLIAMSON V. BLANCHARD.
IT is a wheelwright at St. Helens, and the
artowner at Liverpool. The action, which
done and money paid, was undefended.

not ag

The plainti

CLAIM FOR

)SS FROM THE RE-SALE OF SHARES.

THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH FISHERMEN.-
portant question relating to the rights of the fishermen
of the two countries has bean brought before the
magistrates at Colchester by the customs officers, at the
instance of the French authorities. The information
was against John Scarlett, the master of the Isabella,
of that port, for having been found on the high seas,
between Great Britain and France, with a dredge for
catching oysters on board his vessel, contrary to the
acts of parliament and the convention founded on them
between the two countries. The facts of the case were
that, on the 24th of June, the Isabella was dredging
for oysters off Dunkirk, when she was captured by 3
3anli -,- company, .. French war steamer, and carried into that port. llere
eto • After some I the vessel was detained some time, till the master
bin: made the following admission, which was now put ill
or th evidence against him :-7-" On Friday, the 24th of June,
Befe I was catching oysters in the British Channel, when 11
lie sh French steam-vessel of war came and took possession of
clef( my boat, and brought me into Dunkirk." The deposi-
lie h Cons taken by the French authorities were put in-
thus , Amongst them was the affidavit of the captain of the
that French steamer, who stated that he found five English
) beta vessels fishing for oysters within about six miles of Dun-
e day kirk, and that the defendant's vessel had been seized and
ied w, , detained. The defence set up was that there was no
proof that this spot, within six miles of Dunkirk, where
was re: the vessel was taken, was within the limits prescribed by
If that the convention; and that if the line was to be drawn t°
plaint
....ion brought to recover damages for offence Dunkirk, and not to the utmost boundary of the French
SENT (
ma V. 1
tie infringement of a patept. Isnltge,
ehtthheadtyhweirwoecunlwdeasbo
name Nsn'oiitttht:sadUttwisthiftaeheinitiomryittshee.viTdliehmneictmes,adisadttrasatt.h.e.es
mined the charge.

Mr. Tempi(

CHAPMAN V DAILEY.
was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Evans for

the defendarit,

An 'ln-

was brought to recover the sum of £l2O
for the difference between the prices of
sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, in
ast, 1857, an 4. prices realised I,)y the re-
shares, the defendant having refused to

certain snares
Jnly and Aug

insurance agent, residing in the
the defendant was an insurance
residing in Manchester. The

plaintiff was
General Life

owner of 400 shares in the United
insurance Company, and six shares in the
..„tt Joint-stock which were
ffered by him for

correspoidencE

ale to the defendant.• After some
plaintiff's offer was accepted, the
a for the life shares, aad £3O each
;. Before the transfer was signed,
1. the shares in both companies had
- declined to com-

prices being 4s.

for the bail s:

--- ',wires were re-sold, and it
the loss thus sustained was £l2O. _

appeared that

Isis Lordshi
would be the d

ip said that the amount to be. claimed
iifference between the contract price and
.ce on the day the contract was broken.
`,o be tried was, whether a contract had

The question

been -made

The correspondence was read, and it proved so strongly I
the case for the plaintiff that no defence was offered. A
verdict for £55 for the plaintiff was agreed to.

NFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT

M'NEE V. NIMMO,

This was an